Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
“location and labels of a statutory provision do not by themselves transform a civil remedy into a criminal one,” or vice versa. Smith, 538 U.S. at 94, 123 S.Ct. 1140; see also Trop, 356 U.S. at 94, 78 S.Ct. 590 (“How simple would be the tasks of constitutional adjudication and of law generally if specific problems could be solved by inspection of the labels pasted on them! Manifestly the issue of whether [a statute] is a penal law cannot be thus determined.”). Rather, the Supreme Court instructs that “a penalty [ ] cannot be converted into [a non-penal measure] by so naming it,” and we must “ascribe to [the particular statute] the character disclosed by its purpose and operation, regardless of name.” United States v. Constantine, 296 U.S. 287, 294, 56 S.Ct. 223, 80 L.Ed. 233 (1935) . Likewise, “even a clear legislative
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that even though labeled a tax on conducting retail liquor business challenged statute was nevertheless a penalty designed to punish the violation of state liquor laws
B. holding place as used in statute defining liquor nuisance was not limited to a particular building but included entire area where illicit liquor business was conducted
C. holding that a tax credit to liquor licensees against taxes owed to the state was an unconstitutional subsidy of the liquor industry
D. holding that a county liquor license board had no standing to appeal the reversal of its decision
E. holding that legislative diminishment of tax obligation constituted an unconstitutional subsidy to the liquor industry in violation of the antidonation clause
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.