Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of the taxing authority to perform its public functions could be brought to a standstill by mass appeals. The potential harm of such a rule is intolerable to government.'' Id. at 109-10, 351 A.2d 156. 11 . When the taxpayer paid under threat of immediate harm or duress to person or property, the taxpayer usually could recover the taxes in an action at law, since such a payment was considered involuntary. See City of Baltimore v. Lefferman, 4 Gill 425 (1846) ("We consider, therefore, the doctrine as established, that a payment is not to be regarded as compulsory, unless made to emancipate the person or property, from an actual and existing duress, imposed upon it by the party, to whom the money is paid”); see also Martin G. Imbach Inc. v. Deegan, 208 Md. 115, 117 A.2d 864 (1955) . 12 . Code 1939 Art. 81, § 162 leads us to
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that appellants payment of poundage fees was not voluntary when appellant paid the fee to prevent a sheriff from attaching and taking away equipment belonging to appellants business in satisfaction of a prior judgment
B. holding officers articulated reasonable suspicion justified appellants contin ued detention to await canine unit when officer suspected appellant of drug trafficking based on appellants prior arrests for drug offenses appellants lie about his prior criminal history and appellants possession of small jewelers bags used in cocaine trafficking
C. holding that the appellants claim that the circuit court erred in failing to make specific findings of fact as to all claims in the appellants rule 32 petition was not preserved for review because the appellant did not first present the claim to the circuit court
D. holding error for chancellor to find that the appellants had tortiously interfered with the appellees business relationships where record failed to disclose a single client who was influenced by the appellants to terminate the appellees services due to the appellants intervention
E. holding that appellants privacy interests under the us and texas constitutions were not invaded when officer walked up appellants driveway to allow drug dog to sniff appellants garage door
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.