Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that the sales-tax exemption in § 40-23-4(a)(ll) facially discriminated against interstate commerce, and was thus “‘“virtually per se invalid,” ’ ” and that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to “the Department’s justification for any discriminatory treatment in assessing sales taxes.” Hoover, Inc. v. State Dep’t of Revenue, 833 So.2d at 35, 36 (quoting Fulton Corp. v. Faulkner, 516 U.S. 325, 331, 116 S.Ct. 848, 133 L.Ed.2d 796 (1996)). The supreme court specifically stated that the Department had “completely ignore[d]” the United States Supreme Court cases relied on by Hoover for the proposition that the tax-exemption statute discriminated against interstate commerce and had, instead, relied on State v. Leary & Owens Equipment Co., 54 Ala.App. 49, 304 So.2d 604 (Civ.1974) , for its contention that taxing out-of-state
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that defendants conduct amounted to substantial and nonisolated activity within florida for purposes of general jurisdiction where its advertising strategy was designed to generate product sales in florida and its dollar volume of sales was substantial
B. holding that alabama could tax the sales of repair parts to county governments in florida when the transactions were conducted entirely within alabama
C. holding that the essential purpose of use tax is the recoupment of lost sales tax revenue
D. holding property lien for nonpayment of sales tax was beyond boroughs authority to collect sales tax
E. holding that exercising general jurisdiction over defendant was improper where its actual sales in florida were a small percentage of the total sales and therefore these sales were de minimis 
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.