receive a fair rate of return. It is reasonable to conclude that the Legislature conferred on the Commissioner of Insurance the necessary implied authority to satisfy the constitutional standard that it expressly acknowledged in the statute. [Id. at 45-46, 590 A.2d 191.] As applied to the corporation business tax context, the State Farm analysis indicates that the Director’s obligation under N.J.S.A. 54:10A-8 to ensure that the allocation of income to New Jersey is fair under the Due Process and Commerce Clauses in itself provides a basis for sustaining the facial constitutionality of a statute that might, under certain circumstances, result in an unfair apportionment of income to this State. See Delmarva Power & Light Co. v. Director, Div. of Taxation, 23 N.J.Tax 188, 208-210 (2006) (<HOLDING>). I turn now to a discussion of the contention,
recognizing that the internal consistency standard is satisfied where the formula if applied by every jurisdiction  would result in no more than all of the unitary  businesss income being taxed holding that the statute as applied violates the commerce clause holding that if the allocation formula under njsa 5410a6 produces a result that is unconstitutional under the commerce clause then njsa 5410a8 operates as a safety valve permitting the director to modify the formula so that it satisfies constitutional requirements holding  13981 constitutional under the commerce clause holding that sornas registration requirements and criminal enforcement provision are proper under the commerce clause