Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of, such person for any offense connected with the administration or enforcement of the internal revenue laws, or (ii) any request is made under section 6103(h)(3)(B) for the disclosure of any return or return information (within the meaning of section 6103(b)) relating to such person.” 26 U.S.C. § 7602(d)(2)(A). Agent Weinger has attested that “[a]s of the date of this declaration, there is no ‘Justice Department referral,’ as that term is described in 26 U.S.C. § 7602(d), in effect with respect to the Khans for any of the periods in issue.” (R. 30, Weinger Decl. ¶ 13.) This representation satisfies this Court that Petitioners have not been referred to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution. See United States v. Ins. Consultants of Knox, Inc., 187 F.3d 755, 759 (7th Cir.1999) . Petitioners argue, however, that the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an appellant bears the burden of demonstrating error on appeal
B. holding that the government can usually satisfy its burden of demonstrating the propriety of an irs summons through an affidavit of one of its agents
C. holding that the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that the action should be transferred
D. holding that the government must satisfy its burden of proving contract damages
E. holding actual possession of or access to information by the irs is not an absolute bar to enforcement of a summons for that information
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.