Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Interpreting all of the sections together, section 6323(b)(6)(A) provides that the federal lien is subordinated to the County’s lien; it does not render the federal lien invalid as to the property itself or any other party. See, e.g., In re Tabone, Inc., 175 B.R. 855, 859 n. 8 (Bankr.D.N.J.1994) (noting that section 6323(b)(6)(A) provides that the township’s tax liens hold priority status over the federal lien); Hinkley & Donovan, 424 F.Supp. at 1019; Amos, 287 F.Supp. at 890-91. Thus, the federal lien remained valid and survived the County’s tax sale. Because the IRS was not given notice of the County’s tax sale after the IRS had filed notice of its lien on the property, the lien attached to the property and Fox purchased the property subject to the lien. 26 U.S.C.A. § 7425(b)(1) . While the County argues that interpreting the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the lien bond releases the property from the lien but the lien is then secured by the bond
B. holding in the analogous context of choiceoflaw in relation to the sale of personal property that compensation for arranging the sale is assessed apart from underlying sale
C. holding that subsequent to a judicial sale the report of the sale must be made to and ratified by the court before a deed for the property is given by the trustee to the purchaser
D. holding chapter 13 plan funded by sale of property was not feasible where the debtor had not stated the time period or terms of the sale and no provision was made for failure to sell the property
E. holding that where property subject to the irss timely filed lien is sold during a nonjudicial sale and the irs is not given notice of the sale the sale of the property is made subject to and without disturbing the lien
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.