Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Brief, 1. Klayman’s response is twofold. He admits to making the income alleged by the Government but points out his annual income over that period fluctuated greatly from as low as $61,000 to $328,000. Plaintiffs Response to Gov’t’s Facts ¶ 26. Secondly, he points out that for the years 2001 through 2003 the majority of the reported income constituted “phantom,” or passive, non-cash income passed through from Herkly, his Subchapter S corporation. See Response to Gov’t’s Facts ¶ 24; Klayman Dep. 47-49 attached to Plaintiffs Response; see also Government Ex. 118-120, Form 1040 for 2001-2003, Schedule E. Neither of these reasons, however, explains why no payment at all was made toward his tax debt for the previous years. See In re Scarpiello, 240 B.R. 203, 209 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1999) ; In re Lacheen, 2005 WL 1155257 *4
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that state legislature should determine whether to cure discriminatory tax by enforcing tax as to all or forgiving tax in its entirety
B. holding this court generally lacks jurisdiction over the sec 6651a2 addition to tax for failure to pay tax
C. holding that failure to make any tax payment despite having resources sufficient to pay all or a substantial portion of tax liability constitutes evasion
D. holding that state and city tax evasion considered relevant conduct under conviction for federal tax evasion
E. holding that franchisees tax evasion scheme provided cause for termination
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.