Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the actual damages and the punitive damages is the same. The jury in the state case found that Scarborough willfully and maliciously injured Fischer by instigating the criminal charges and the petition for a protective order. Scarborough’s willful and malicious conduct resulted in the actual damages and, with the jury’s finding of outrageousness, supported the punitive damages. Because the holding in In re Ratcliff, 199 B.R. 185 (Bankr.W.D.Mo.1996), the decision relied on by the bankruptcy court in this case, differs from our opinion, we decline to follow it. Finally, we note that our holding today regarding the dischargeability of punitive damages is consistent with our sister Circuits. See Abbo v. Rossi, McCreery & Assocs., Inc. (In re Abbo), 168 F.3d 930, 931-32 (6th Cir.1999) ; Hagan v. McNallen (In re McNallen), 62 F.3d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding without discussion of the punitive damages issue that judgment for embezzlement which included actual and punitive damages was nondischargeable
B. holding punitive damages nondischargeable under  523a6 when such damages are based on the same conduct as the underlying nondischargeable judgment
C. holding nondischargeable postpetition interest on debt that was determined to be nondischargeable under section 523a2 as obtained by fraud
D. holding that in a chapter 7 case postpetition interest on a nondischargeable tax claim is also nondischargeable
E. holding that punitive damages which are based on the same underlying action justifying nondischargeability of compensatory damages are likewise nondischargeable
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.