With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Comptroller of the Treasury v. Armco, Inc., 70 Md.App. 403, 521 A.2d 785, 793, (Md.App.1987). In remanding the case to the Tax Court, Judge Pollitt, on behalf of this Court, explained that the court must inquire further into the intra-corporate relationship. Specifically, it must determine whether the taxpayer’s activities incident to earning the interest income were part of the taxpayer’s business activities in Maryland or merely a discrete business enterprise. Id. 521 A.2d at 795. In Armco, the corporate taxpayer asserted that because the interest income at issue was derived from an investment in a nonunitary corporation, that income could not be taxed by the State. The taxpayer sought support for this position in ASARCO, supra. Our review of ASARCO found nothing the 922 (Colo.1983) (<HOLDING>); Sperry and Hutchinson Company v. Department

A: holding that care of the grounds was part of the business of the hospital
B: holding that corporations interest from shortterm securities held pending use of funds in its regular business operation was apportionable
C: holding there are three tests used to determine whether an employee was engaged in an activity that is part of the owners trade business or occupation
D: holding interest derived from shortterm notes is an integral part of lone stars business since the surplus finds are produced by that business the investments are shortterm liquid made with the intent that both the principal and interest are to be used in the regular course of the taxpayers trade or business
D.