Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
“imputed income from the distribution is a relevant factor if the parent chooses to deal with the distribution other than as an investment vehicle.” Id. (citing Croak, supra note 4, 856 N.E.2d at 906). “The trial court retains that discretion in part because ‘[a] parent cannot insulate an inheritance from consideration for child support by transforming it into a non-income producing asset.’ ” Lasché I, supra, 977 A.2d at 372 (quoting Cody, supra note 4, 291 A.D.2d 27, 735 N.Y.S.2d at 185). Where a parent does so, it may be reasonable to impute income to all or a portion of an inheritance where there is an adequate foundation for doing so. See, e.g., Connell v. Connell, 313 N.J.Super. 426, 712 A.2d 1266, 1270 (1998); see also Gainey v. Gainey, 89 Wash.App. 269, 948 P.2d 865, 869 (1997)  If appellant had invested the funds, the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that ijnter vivos trust distributions are not considered interest obtained by bequest devise or inheritance 
B. holding that the corpus of an inheritance is not included in a parents gross income but that the interest generated by an inheritance is
C. holding that inter vivos trusts are not considered interest obtained by bequest devise or inheritance
D. holding inheritance received by debtor more than 180 days after filing but before conversion is property of chapter 7 estate
E. recognizing that a vested equitable estate can be passed through inheritance
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.