Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
for refund with the IRS for the amount of tax at issue. See 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a) (stating that “[n]o suit or proceeding shall be maintained in any court for the recovery of any internal revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, ..., until a claim for refund or credit has been duly filed with the Secretary ... ”). Third, a plaintiff is required to provide the amount, date, and place of each payment to be refunded, as well as a copy of the refund claim, when filing a refund suit in the United States Court of Federal Claims. See RCFC 9(h)(6). Failure to plead that a timely refund claim has been filed, even in pro se actions, deprives the United States Court of Federal Claims of jurisdiction. See Wozniak v. United States, 618 F.2d 119 (Ct.Cl.1979) . Plaintiff has not satisfied the prerequisites
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that although pro se briefs are liberally construed even pro se litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve them
B. holding that a tax refund claim must be dismissed if the principal tax deficiency has not been paid in full
C. holding that the taxpayer met the claim requirement where the taxpayer first filed a timely letter with the irs that requested a refund and subsequently filed a formal refund claim
D. holding that refund suit for tax imposed in violation of export clause filed beyond applicable period of limitations was barred where claimant had failed to first present timely administrative claim to internal revenue service even though there was little  if any  reason to believe that claim would have been granted
E. holding that even in a pro se tax suit a timely claim for refund must be filed to invoke the courts jurisdiction
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.