Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the plan would likely only perversely benefit ISN. Therefore, given these circumstances, the court acted within its discretion when it allowed the replacement fiduciary to formally terminate the plan. C. The issue of whether ISN’s request for a stay is moot is a question of law to be reviewed de novo. Green v. City Of Raleigh, 523 F.3d 293, 298 (4th Cir.2008). Similarly, whether the district court order requiring ISN to pay Saakvitne was one for injunctive or monetary relief is also subject to de novo review. Because ISN has already paid Saakvitne and ISN did not appeal the district court’s denial of its request for a stay under Fed. R.App. P. 8(a)(2), ISN’s appeal of the earlier December 2009 order is now moot. See, e.g., Koger v. United States, 755 F.2d 1094, 1096-98 (4th Cir.1985) . Furthermore, the posting of a supersedeas
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding the rule against taxpayer standing applies both to federal taxpayers and state taxpayers challenging state tax or spending decisions simply by virtue of their status as state taxpayers
B. holding that an appeal by taxpayers in a lawsuit seeking to enjoin the government from collecting income tax deficiencies was mooted because the taxpayers had paid the deficiencies pending the appeal
C. holding that taxpayers failure to follow state requirement that he report change in federal income tax did not except state tax liability from discharge
D. holding that it was not the taxpayers responsibility to pursue the different tax units to which the illegally levied county tax was proportioned as the taxpayer was entitled to recover the full amount of the tax from the county the collecting entity
E. holding that wages are subject to oregons personal income tax and that a taxpayers argument to the contrary was frivolous
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.