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.

Example Input: 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
Example Output: (B)

Example Input: a court must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, id., and “the court must assume the truth of all well-pleaded allegations.” Warren v. Dist. of Columbia, 353 F.3d 36, 39 (D.C.Cir.2004). 1. Equal protection “Unless a classification ... is drawn upon inherently suspect distinctions such as race, religion, or alienage,” statutory distinctions are presumed constitutional, and will survive a challenge if the classification is “rationally related to a legitimate state interest.” City of New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U.S. 297, 303, 96 S.Ct. 2513, 49 L.Ed.2d 511 (1976). Although not every non-suspect legislative classification passes muster under rational basis review, see, e.g., Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Ward, 470 U.S. 869, 882, 105 S.Ct. 1676, 84 L.Ed.2d 751 (1985) (<HOLDING>), “the judiciary may not sit as a 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that property tax was a state tax and was thus disproportionate unreasonable and unfair because of discrepancies in tax rates of up to 400 between school districts (B) holding that the tax was indirect even though the recipient could not shift the tax to others (C) holding that a preferential state tax rate for domestic businesses violated the equal protection clause because the states justifications  that the tax promoted domestic industry and encouraged investment in domestic assets  were not legitimate government interests since if they were any discriminatory tax would be valid if the state could show it reasonably was intended to benefit domestic business (D) holding that state legislature should determine whether to cure discriminatory tax by enforcing tax as to all or forgiving tax in its entirety (E) holding that if federal income tax statutes are intended to benefit anyone it is the federal government to whom the withheld tax is to be remitted there is no indication anywhere in the language of the statutes that congress intended to confer rights on employees with respect to the withholding of tax
Example Output: (C)

Example Input: and Austin W. Scott, Jr., Substantive Criminal Law § 3.8 at 342-44 (1986)). We noted with approval the seven factors LaFave and Scott have suggested be balanced in deciding this question. One of these factors, the severity of the punishment, suggests that the legislature might have intended to require proof of mental state for the enhancement of dealing in cocaine. .Other factors, particularly the great danger of the prohibited conduct and the great number of expected prosecutions, suggest that the General Assembly likely did intend to create a strict Hability enhancement. Our assessment of these factors makes it difficult to conclude that the General Assembly intended to require separate proof the defendant knew that the dealing occurred near a school but failed 623 (Ind.Ct.App.1985) (<HOLDING>). 2 . These factors are: 1) the legislative 
 Holding statements: (A) holding obscenity statute required proof of scienter (B) holding that proof of an explicit agreement is not required (C) holding that proof of scienter is required to succeed on a claim under  1991a1 but not under  1991a2 or  1991a3 (D) holding child molesting statute required proof of scienter (E) holding that the incredible dubiosity rule was inapplicable and affirming the defendants conviction for child molesting
Example Output:
(D)