## Facts

- Mobil Oil Corporation, commercially domiciled in New York, conducted an integrated worldwide petroleum business and marketed petroleum products in Vermont.
- Vermont imposed a corporate income tax on corporations doing business in the state, using a formula apportionment method applied to the corporation’s net income.
- Mobil received dividends from foreign subsidiaries and affiliates engaged in petroleum operations abroad; Mobil excluded those “foreign source” dividends from the income base reported to Vermont as nonapportionable.
- Vermont’s tax department treated the foreign dividends as apportionable business income, included them in net income, applied the apportionment formula, and assessed a deficiency for tax years 1970–1972.
- Mobil challenged the assessment, arguing that taxing any portion of the foreign dividends violated the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause and the Commerce Clause (including foreign commerce concerns).
- The Vermont Superior Court ruled for Mobil; the Vermont Supreme Court reversed and upheld the assessment.

## Issues

1. Whether including foreign-source dividend income in Vermont’s apportionable corporate tax base violated the Due Process Clause for lack of sufficient nexus or relationship to in-state activity.
2. Whether formula apportionment of foreign-source dividends violated the Commerce Clause by burdening or discriminating against interstate commerce.
3. Whether formula apportionment of foreign-source dividends violated the Foreign Commerce Clause by creating unacceptable risks of multiple international taxation or interfering with national foreign commerce policy.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the Vermont Supreme Court and upheld the assessment.
- The Court held Vermont had a sufficient nexus to Mobil and could include the foreign dividends in the apportionable tax base where the dividends were part of returns from a unitary business.
- Mobil failed to prove the dividends derived from discrete, nonunitary activities unrelated to its Vermont business.
- The Court rejected the claim that only the commercial domicile could tax the dividend income; domicile’s power was not exclusive for income attributable to a unitary multistate enterprise.
- The Court rejected foreign commerce objections based solely on the possibility of foreign taxation, finding no unconstitutional burden from Vermont’s fairly apportioned scheme.

## Legal Principles

- The “unitary business” principle governs apportionability of corporate income; if a corporation operates a unitary business across jurisdictions, a state may tax an apportioned share of the enterprise’s income.
- Dividend form and foreign source do not, by themselves, immunize income from inclusion in a state’s apportionable tax base when the dividends are part of the unitary business’s returns.
- A taxpayer challenging inclusion of income in the apportionable base bears the burden to show the income comes from unrelated, nonunitary activities.
- Under the Commerce Clause, a state of commercial domicile does not have exclusive authority to tax income attributable to a unitary business conducted in multiple states; overlapping taxing authority is not unconstitutional if the tax is fairly apportioned and nondiscriminatory.
- Under the Foreign Commerce Clause, the mere possibility of multiple international taxation does not invalidate a fairly apportioned state tax absent a demonstrated unconstitutional burden on foreign commerce.

## Conclusion

Vermont could constitutionally include Mobil’s foreign subsidiary dividends in its apportionable corporate income tax base because the dividends were part of a unitary petroleum enterprise with substantial Vermont operations, and the resulting formula-apportioned tax violated neither due process nor the Commerce Clause, including its foreign commerce component.


Mobil Oil Corp. v. Comm’r of Taxes of Vt., 445 U.S. 425 (1980)