In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision.  Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. The four incorrect answers are other holding statements. You should find the correct option. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

[Q]: business is a disputed question of fact which cannot be resolved on summary judgment. State Auto disputes Appellants’ arguments and also posits in the alternative that, even if Kraus was an “insured” at the time he committed the acts in question, Appellants’ false imprisonment claims were subsumed by their sexual assault claims. As discussed below, we conclude that the district court correctly found that the determination of whether Kraus was an “insured” under the policy is a question of law where the pertinent facts are undisputed, that the policy is not ambiguous, and that Kraus’s acts fall within the Criminal-Acts Exclusion. Because we affirm the district court on those grounds, we do not reach State Auto’s alternative argument in support 2d 349, 633 N.W.2d 707 (Wis.Ct.App.2001) (<HOLDING>); Michelet v. Scheuring Sec. Servs. Inc., 680 
 Holding statements: (A) holding the question of whether insurance companys requests were reasonable under policy language was a fact question (B) holding that the question of whether an employee was acting within the course and scope of his employment or while performing duties related to the conduct of the employers business for purposes of insurance coverage were questions of fact that precluded summary judgment particularly since there was a question regarding the employees intent in performing the act in question (C) holding that issues of fact precluded summary judgment on the question of whether an employee was acting within the course and scope of his employment for purposes of insurance coverage when the employee was simply sitting in his vehicle in his employers parking lot waiting for the business to open at the time the accident occurred (D) holding that it is well established that whether an employees actions were within the scope of employment is a question of fact and even if some of the actions were unauthorized the question of whether the actions were within the scope of employment is for the jury (E) holding that generally the question of waiver and estoppel is a question of fact
[A]: (B)


[Q]: Over Plaintiffs’ Refund Claim. The June 4, 2009 Second Amended Complaint also could be construed as alleging a claim for tax refund, because Plaintiffs request the return of taxes that they allegedly paid. Sec. Am. Compl. at 1-2. The court, however, does not have jurisdiction over this claim, because Plaintiffs have failed to pay the taxes owed in full. 26 U.S.C. § 6511(a). Plaintiffs insist that they fully paid the taxes in intiffs’ Takings Claim. Although Plaintiffs also argue the court has jurisdiction “as described in 28 U.S.C. § 1491, for a claim for just compensation for the taking of property [ ] by the government,” as a matter of law, tax collection is not a cognizable taking under the Fifth Amendment. U.S. Shoe Corp. v. United States, 296 F.3d 1378, 1383 (Fed.Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). As the United States Court of Federal Claims 
 Holding statements: (A) holding unemployment taxes accrued when employees were terminated not when the amount of compensation taxes are determinable (B) holding that taxes are not private property that can be physically taken by the government (C) holding that taxes were a claim against the estate that had to be filed in probate court thus reversing an order requiring heirs to pay taxes on estate property because the district court did not have jurisdiction (D) holding that when federal government acquires property through condemnation it must account for state and local property taxes interest and penalties (E) holding petitioner could not deduct real estate taxes imposed on property he did not own because these taxes were not imposed on him
[A]: (B)


[Q]: and Paroles, 677 So.2d 1261 (Ala.Crim.App.1996); and Sloan v. Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles, 647 So.2d 85 (Ala.Crim.App.1994). Because the initial decision to grant or deny parole is completely within the discretion of the Board, such a decision should not be reviewable by state comets. See Braxton v. Josey, 567 F.Supp. 1479, 1480 (D.Md.1983) (noting that review was appropriate in federal court because “Maryland does not provide for judicial review of decisions to deny parole”). Compare Quintero v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, 329 Or. 319, 986 P.2d 575, 579 (1999) (noting that state statute “provides that ‘any decision relating to a release date’ is not subject to judicial review”). Cf. Esensoy v. Board of Pardons and Paroles, 793 So.2d 774, 778 (Ala.2000) (<HOLDING>); Kirk v. State, 536 So.2d 118, 119 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that judicial review of the boards denial of a request for remission of a fine or forfeiture is limited to those situations where the board has failed to consider a request that it exercise its discretion or where there is justification for the courts exercising its equitable jurisdiction (B) holding that denial of untimely request was not abuse of discretion (C) holding that third party seeking to be reimbursed for costs incurred in responding to discovery request had standing to appeal because its interests were directly represented by its own counsel in the trial court it was effectively bound by the trial courts final order of dismissal the other party would have had the right to appeal the trial courts ruling if it had granted the request for reimbursement and the third party had no other legal remedy to contest the trial courts denial of its request (D) holding that in its review of the irs exercise of discretion the court is limited to a review of the administrative record (E) holding that the trial court failed to exercise its discretion in merely stating that the request could not be granted because there was no transcript at this point
[A]:
(A)