concurring.
I join the Court’s opinion holding that “[i]n light of the facially discriminatory nature of the multiple activities exemption,” ante, at 244, see Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U. S. 725, 756-757 (1981), the Washington taxpayers need not prove actual discriminatory impact “by an examination of the tax burdens imposed by other States.” Ante, at 247. I do not read the Court’s decision as extending the “internal consistency” test described in Armco Inc. v. Hardesty, 467 U. S. 638, 644-645 (1984), to taxes that are not facially discriminatory, contra, post, at 257-258 (Scalia, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), nor would I agree with such a result in these cases. See American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. Schemer, post, p. 298 (O’Connor, J., dissenting).