Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
informal refund claim based on written protests prior to payment); Night Hawk Leasing Co. v. United States, 84 Ct.Cl. 596, 603-04, 18 F.Supp. 938 (1937) (concluding that the taxpayer made an informal refund claim by writing an objection on the back of a check submitted as payment of the tax). Contrary to the assertions in plaintiffs complaint, Mr. Evans’ March 29, 2012 memorandum does not satisfy either of the requirements for informal claims. First, although the memorandum states that Mr. Evans verbally “conceded” that Mr. Ishler “has an open informal claim due to the documented discussions with IRS officials,” Compl. Ex. A at 1, it does not reference any written component of that alleged claim. See, e.g., Disabled Am. Veterans v. United States, 650 F.2d 1178, 1179-80 (Ct.Cl.1981)  (citations omitted). Second, the memorandum
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that oral assertions by the taxpayer during an audit were insufficient as a matter of law to constitute an informal refund claim
B. holding that an oral challenge to the venire is insufficient
C. holding that while the contract did not establish a formal fiduciary relationship the pleadings were sufficient to raise an issue as to the existence of an informal one
D. holding that a negative performance evaluation on its own is insufficient to constitute an adverse employment action as a matter of law
E. holding that a motion to liftthe bankruptcy stay in order to pursue a claim is an informal proof of claim
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.