Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
were actual corporations.”); United States v. Coffman, 94 F.3d 330, 337 (7th Cir.1996) (“[E]ven if ... [Galbraith ] were decided correctly, [it] would not carry the day for the defendants[] [because it is a case] where the fraud would have done no harm even if the defendants had not been interrupted[ ] [whereas h]ere the fraud had a real victim in its sights but was interrupted before it could do any harm.”); United States v. Falcioni, 45 F.3d 24, 27 (2d Cir.1995) (noting Galbraith’s “limited exception to use of the intended loss figure” and stating that “Falcioni’s plan failed to result in loss, not because his victim was a non-existent entity, but rather because [an acquaintance] notified law enforcement authorities”); cf. United States v. Sheets, 65 F.3d 752, 753-54 (8th Cir.1995) . In sum, rather than implicitly criticize our
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that if federal income tax statutes are intended to benefit anyone it is the federal government to whom the withheld tax is to be remitted there is no indication anywhere in the language of the statutes that congress intended to confer rights on employees with respect to the withholding of tax
B. holding that information furnished to preparer of tax return is not privileged
C. holding that the tax was indirect even though the recipient could not shift the tax to others
D. holding defendant liable for intended loss created by filing false tax return for someone else even though intended victim demonstrated to irs that tax return was bogus
E. holding in tax case that the sophisticated means enhancement applied even when each step in the planned tax evasion was simple because when viewed together the steps comprised a plan more complex than merely filling out a false tax return
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.