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. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

[EX Q]: by this Court. The documents presented to the Court are not forms as prescribed by the Secretary of which the Debtors have verified under penalty of perjury. Instead, the Debtors submitted affidavits of Charles D. Tobias and documents entitled "Actual and Constructive Notice of Declaration." In filing bankruptcy, the Debtors have sought this Court's protection from creditors, including the Internal Revenue Service. However, the Debtors have continued to ig nore this Court's orders and the Internal Revenue laws in failing to file tax returns. The Court finds that the Debtors' disregard of this Court's orders as well as their duty to file tax returns is evidence that the Debtors lacked good faith in filing this bankruptcy case. Matter of Crayton, 169 B.R. 243, 245 (Bankr.S.D.Ga.1994) (<HOLDING>). Section 1307(c) of Title 11 provides that
Holding statements: (A) holding that failure to file correct tax returns constitutes bad faith and makes it difficult for the court to confirm a plan (B) holding that a debtors right to strip off a wholly unsecured lien is conditioned on the debtors obtaining confirmation of and performing under a chapter 13 plan that meets all of the statutory requirements rather than on a debtors discharge (C) holding that order denying confirmation of plan became final when upon being notified that the debtors did not intend to seek confirmation of an alternate plan the court dismissed their case (D) holding that debtors failure to pay postconfirmation taxes pursuant to terms of court order constituted cause for dismissal as a lack of good faith (E) holding on an objection to confirmation of plan that the debtors failure to file tax returns before filing the chapter 13 plan and debtors failure for six months to comply with federal law constituted a lack of good faith sufficient to warrant dismissal of the case
[EX A]: holding that failure to file correct tax returns constitutes bad faith and makes it difficult for the court to confirm a plan

[EX Q]: rise to the level of the allegations in Harke-ma. While physical abuse obviously endangers a child, Ma Donna's account of her January 1997 fight with F.G. is not inconsistent with F.G.'s charge (except for the allegation of hair-pulling). An alleged single incident of borderline abuse or neglect has been held not to constitute sufficient endangerment to warrant a custody modification. See Smith, 508 N.W.2d at 227 (insufficient endangerment where child was injured by fallen cuckoo clock and mother allegedly examined clock before child). Under the circumstances, the court did not abuse its discretion in giving this incident little weight. This court has been inconsistent in categorizing a custodial parent's efforts to isolate the child from relatives. Compare Westphal, 457 N.W.2d at 229 (<HOLDING>) with Smith, 508 N.W.2d at 227 (stating that a
Holding statements: (A) holding that postadoption visitation of child who was adopted by grandparents on basis of biological parents unconditional consent was required to promote childs best interests (B) holding that paramount consideration in terminationofparentalrights proceeding is best interests of the child (C) holding mothers cutting off contact with grandparents to be best interests consideration but not evidence of endangerment (D) holding that best interests of the child analysis requires consideration of all section 5328a factors (E) holding unconstitutional a statute authorizing courts to recognize grandparents as having the same standing as parents for evaluating what custody arrangements are in the best interest of the child where the child actually resided with the grandparents in a stable relationship
[EX A]: holding that postadoption visitation of child who was adopted by grandparents on basis of biological parents unconditional consent was required to promote childs best interests

[EX Q]: Frank McLain and Harley McLain appeal pro se the district court's dismissal of their 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985, and 1988 action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291. We review de novo and may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Steckman v. Hart Brewing, Inc., 143 F.3d 1293, 1295 (9th Cir.1998). We affirm. Because plaintiffs reside in Montana and North Dakota but did not allege a concrete harm caused by the out-of-state defendants, the district court properly dismissed these claims for lack of standing. See Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899, 904, 116 S.Ct. 1894, 135 L.Ed.2d 207 (1996) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Hays, 515 U.S. 737, 743-44,
Holding statements: (A) holding that the plaintiffs due process challenge to a city ordinance was barred because it was inextricably intertwined with a statecourt ruling that plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the ordinance (B) holding that a borrower lacks standing to challenge transfers of her promissory note to which the borrower is not a party (C) holding that a plaintiff lacks standing to challenge legislation created outside of plaintiffs district absent specific evidence of personal harm (D) holding that a party lacks standing to challenge the validity of a deed issued by a county treasurer in the absence of actual injury to a legally protected interest (E) holding that a claimant without an interest in a particular specific asset lacks standing to initiate ancillary proceeding
[EX A]:
holding that the plaintiffs due process challenge to a city ordinance was barred because it was inextricably intertwined with a statecourt ruling that plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the ordinance