Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
differs not at all from the speculation in Hughes Properties that a jackpot might never be paid by a casino. As we observed in Hughes Properties, the potential of nonpayment of a liability always exists, and it alone does not prevent accrual. The beneficiary of a liability always has the option of waiving payment, but a taxpayer is still unquestionably entitled to deduct the liability. An injured employee entitled absolutely to reimbursement for medical services under a workers’ compensation statute, for example, may fail to utilize the medical services. The employer, however, has been held to be entitled to deduct the expected medical expenses because the workers’ compensation law creates liability. See Wien Consolidated Airlines, Inc. v. Commissioner, 528 F. 2d 735 (CA9 1976) . Similarly, any business liability could
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that accrual basis taxpayer may deduct expected workers compensation payments in year of injury even though injured workers may not utilize medical benefits
B. holding that the trial courts authority to initiate workers compensation benefits before the final adjudication was not divested by the legislature and was consistent with the stated purpose of the workers compensation act
C. recognizing that a federal court may not review a challenge to a benefits determination of the office of workers compensation programs in the department of labor
D. holding that pursuant to statute unemployment benefits must be offset against workers compensation payments
E. holding that prohibition may not be used to raise affirmative defense of workers compensation immunity
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.