the result reached in Alton. In essence, § 8.01-328.1(A)(4) confers personal jurisdiction over non-resident defendants who have caused tortious injuries in Virginia by acts or omissions committed outside of Virginia. Thus, for § 8.01-328.1(A)(3) to have any meaning independent of § 8.01-328.1(A)(4), it must require non-resident defendants to be present in Virginia when causing tortious injuries in Virginia. To hold otherwise would render § 8.01-328.1(A)(3) superfluous. 19 . Courts have generally found that amounts greater than $300 are needed to satisfy the “substantial revenue” requirement. See, e.g., Ajax Realty Corp., 493 F.2d at 821-22 (finding that defendant’s $37,000 constituted substantial revenue for purposes of subsection (A)(5)); Processing Research, Inc., 686 F.Supp. at 122 (<HOLDING>); Jackson v. National Linen Serv. Corp., 248
holding that revenue rule did not bar prosecution of a money laundering scheme to defraud the canadian government of tax revenue holding that it is apparent that this act is not a revenue bill within the contemplation of said section of the constitution fpr the reason that the revenue to be derived therefrom is merely an incident to the main object of the bill and that its general purpose was not that of raising revenue id  5 holding that a company that generated revenue from the sale of its assets remained in business holding that 119850 received by defendant for the sale of an aircraft satisfied the substantial revenue provision holding unenforceable certain financing arrangements under a contract for the sale of property upon which the seller is liable for taxes if the sale was consummated with intent to avoid such tax or in fraud of the internal revenue laws