Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
income tax return for the appropriate year, the Commissioner constructed a fraction, using as the numerator the amount of prejudgment interest set by the trial court ($112,000) and as the denominator the total amount of the judgment ($287,000). He then multiplied the total settlement ($250,000) by this fraction and assessed a deficiency on the basis that the resulting product ($97,561) represented the (taxable) interest component of the settlement. See id. The Tax Court sustained the Commissioner’s determination, as did we. See id. at 23. Specifically, we approved the Commissioner’s use of a ratio based on .the judgment in apportioning the undifferentiated settlement proceeds as between prejudgment interest and compensatory damages. See id. at 25-26; accord Robinson, 70 F.3d at 38 . Since the Commissioner used exactly the same
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a motion denying summary judgment will not be reviewed on appeal from a jury verdict where sufficient evidence supports the jurys verdict
B. holding that evidence regarding the existence of an oral contract and its subsequent modification supported the jurys verdict
C. holding that the appellants appeal of the jurys verdict was a material breach of the no appeals provision in the parties settlement agreement
D. holding explicitly that the jurys verdict furnishes the best indication of how to prorate an ensuing settlement
E. holding that where the meaning of the jurys verdict was not clear in light of the trial courts jury instructions the court of appeals erred in directing entry of judgment for respondent the case should have been remanded to the trial judge who was in the best position to pass upon the question of a new trial in light of the evidence his charge to the jury and the jurys verdict
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.