Mexico, No. 21,140, at 13 (N.M. Ct. App. Nov. 27, 2001) (‘‘Kmart"') “[A] state income tax is usually paid only once a year, to one taxing jurisdiction and at one rate, [but] a sales and use tax can be due periodically to more than one taxing jurisdiction within a state and at varying rates.” Id., at 13. Given these reasons, we reject the contention that physical presence is the sine qua non of a state’s jurisdiction to tax under the Commerce Clause for purposes of income and franchise taxes. Rather, we hold that under facts such as these where a wholly-owned subsidiary licenses trademarks to a related retail company operating stores located within North Carolina, there exists a substantial nexus with the State sufficient to satisfy the Commerce Clause. Accord Geoffrey, 437 S.E.2d at 18 (<HOLDING>); Kmart, at 15 (holding that “the use of KPI’s
holding that a petitioner in a judicial review from the land use board of appeals had constitutional standing because the land use decision would affect her use and enjoyment of a nearby estuary that she used for passive recreation holding that the permissive use by a health food store of the franchisors name did not create an agency relationship holding that by licensing intangibles to toys r us an affiliated operating store for use in south carolina and deriving income from their use there geoffrey had a substantial nexus with south carolina holding that continued possession and unrestricted use constitutes regular use holding that allowing moderate use of the resources on the property was not inconsistent with exclusive use