Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
as a debtor-in-possession. The Debtor has stated that he delegated to Mr. Kaplan the responsibility for preparing his financial disclosures on behalf of his estate. Transcript 8/28/2012, 54:3-56:7; Audio recording dated 10/15/2012 @ 12:47 pm, Bky. No. 12-11063MDC; Audio recording dated 10/15/2012 @ 3:14 pm, Bky. No. 12-11063MDC. Mr. Kaplan is indubitably providing accounting services necessary for the administration of the Debtor’s estate. See, e.g., In re Renaissance Residential of Countryside, LLC, 423 B.R. 848, 860-61 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.2010). However, from this Court’s review of the record extant at the time of its decision to appoint a trustee, it did not appear that Mr. Kap-lan was an employee of the Debtor. See, e.g., F/S AirLease II, Inc. v. Simon, 844 F.2d 99, 108 (3d Cir.1988) . Rather, it appeared that Mr. Kaplan was an
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding confirmation vested property in the debtor and therefore properly of the estate was not liable for postconfirmation taxes incurred by debtor
B. recognizing  327b not applicable because party was not employed by the debtor
C. holding that the creditors committee could not sue third party aidersandabettors because the participation of the sole shareholder and decisionmaker of the debtor rendered the debtor a participant
D. holding debtor could include property because the bank accepted payments directly from the debtor and had previously allowed the debtor to cure default
E. recognizing that if a debtor did not satisfy section 109e and if it was jurisdictional the court could not convert debtors case because it would have no authority whatever over debtor
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.