Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
§ 132(e). Requirement that Withholding Obligation be Precise and Non-Speculative Since “the employer is in a secondary position as to liability for any tax of the employee, it is a matter of obvious concern that ... the employer’s obligation to withhold be precise and not speculative.” Central Ill. Pub. Serv. Co. v. United States, 435 U.S. 21, 31, 98 S.Ct. 917, 923, 55 L.Ed.2d 82 (1978). A duty to withhold income taxes on payments made to its employees should not be imposed retroactively on an employer unless there was adequate notice (from the relevant statutes, regulations, and IRS pronouncements) to the employer at the time of the payments that such a withholding obligation existed. See Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. United States, 194 Ct.Cl. 920, 442 F.2d 1362, 1369-70 (1971) . See also Hotel Conquistador, Inc. v. United
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the employer was not required to withhold or pay fica and futa taxes in 1971 with respect to the free meals it furnished its employees because the employer could not have told from the relevant statutes and regulations that the free meals were remuneration and thus wages
B. holding that the plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action under  301 of the lmra because absent an express contractual provision there is no prohibition against an employer moving its operations to another state
C. holding that the employer was not required to withhold income tax from its payments of moving expenses to its existing employees where the state of the law in 1961 gave the employer no reason to suspect that such payments constituted wages
D. holding that no liberty interest was implicated where the public reason for employees dismissal was that their services did not meet the expectations of the public employer
E. holding that glc 152 15 provides that the only party immune from suit under the statute is the direct employer a special employer is not immune because the special employer is not liable for the payment of workers compensation and there was no agreement between the direct employer and the special employer that the special employer would be liable for the payment of such compensation
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.