Did Mead Directly Conduct Business in Illinois Due To Lexis/Nexis Activities?
Illinois contends that the gain from selling Lexis/Nexis was taxable, regardless of the unitary business finding, because Mead conducted business in Illinois through Lexis/Nexis. Brief for the Respondent at 19. The state depends on International Harvester Co. and J.C. Penney for the proposition that states may tax an investor on income from in-state business, even if both the investor and the company were out-of-state domiciliaries. Id. Under this theory, Mead, the investor, could constitutionally be taxed on the gain because Lexis/Nexis benefited from the protection of Illinois law when it conducted business there. Id. at 20. Illinois points to Lexis/Nexis’ substantial business and physical presence in Illinois, and then to Mead’s identification of electronic publication as a business function in public filings and statements, its control over Lexis/Nexis, and the restructurings through which Mead reaped tax advantages. Id. This argument entirely bypasses the unitary business test; Il
