Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
as a trust account is necessary to promote the ends of justice. We find particular support for our holding in the rule stated in Turcotte v. Trevino, 499 S.W.2d 705 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1973, writ ref’d n.r.e.), on remand, 544 S.W.2d 463 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1976), rev’d on other grounds, 564 S.W.2d 682 (Tex.1978). In that case, the Texas Court of Appeals wrote: “Where one having the right to accept or reject a transaction takes and retains benefits thereunder, he ordinarily ratifies the transaction, is bound by it, and cannot avoid its obligation or effect by taking a position inconsistent with it at a later time.” 499 S.W.2d at 712. Although the Texas Supreme Court reversed the Turcotte• decision, it left this basic rule intact. See Turcotte, 564 S.W.2d at 685-86 . We believe appellant’s actions fall within
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that it is a fundamental rule of law that a person cannot take any beneficial interest under a transaction and then adopt a position even if well founded that would defeat the transaction
B. recognizing step transaction doctrine whereby courts must consider all steps of transaction in light of entire transaction so that substance of transaction will control over form of each step
C. holding that a transaction disregarded for lack of economic substance  a nonvaluationrelated ground  nevertheless may be subject to a valuation misstatement penalty because a transaction that lacks economic substance generally reflects an arrangement in which the basis of the property was misvalued in the context of the transaction and that congress intended to penalize such transactions
D. holding that the transaction must be fair and equitable and in good faith
E. recognizing that a transaction that lacks economic substance generally reflects an arrangement in which the basis of the property was misvalued in the context of the transaction
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.