entitle it to tax any portion of the business’ income, then it is proper to attribute the production of income from those sales entirely to the state or stales which have provided “protection opportunities and benefits” to the business throughout the manufacturing process up to the point of shipment to the purchaser. Allocation of such sales to New Hampshire, the state of shipment, under the “throwback rule” therefore does not constitute taxation of extraterritorial values. Rather, it is an allocation of those sales to the state most entitled to levy a tax in return for the opportunities, protections and benefits which it has afforded the taxpayer. [Id. at 1308-1309 (citation omitted).] See also, Covington Fabrics Corp. v. South Carolina Tax Comm’n, 264 S.C. 59, 212 S.E.2d 574 (1975) (<HOLDING>). Based on the constitutionality of the
holding that a threefactor apportionment formula which included a throwback rule in calculating the sales factor satisfied federal constitutional requirements holding that actual apportionment of damages is a question of fact holding that definition of date of injury in section 306c8ix is intended to be utilized for calculating benefits not for determining whether section 311 notice requirements were satisfied holding that the requirements of title iii apply and must be satisfied holding that apportionment of cercla liability is  a matter of federal common law