With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1146, 102 S.Ct. 1009, 71 L.Ed.2d 299 (1982); cf. Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465, 55 S.Ct. 266, 79 L.Ed. 596 (1935). Naturally, the profit or economic motivation cannot be merely tax benefits. Although Section 108 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, Pub.L. No. 98-369, 98 Stat. 494, 630 (1984) (“Section 108”), provides for deduction of losses incurred in closing one leg of a straddle transaction, in order for Section 108 to apply, the underlying transaction must not be a sham. Miller, 836 F.2d at 1278-79; see also Neely v. United States, 775 F.2d 1092, 1094 (9th Cir.1985). The Eleventh Circuit recently affirmed a tax court decision holding that Section 108 does not apply where the transactions involved are shams. Forseth v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 127 (1985) (<HOLDING>), affd without published opinion sub nom.

A: holding commodity straddle transactions shams because of lack of economic substance
B: holding that economic loss rule precludes recovery of economic damages only in the absence of personal injury or property  damage claims
C: holding that subject to certain exceptions the economic loss rule bars recovery in tort for economic damages arising out of matters governed by contract
D: holding that this lack of any reasonable expectation of continued employment suffices to establish the lack of property in the constitutional sense and hence the lack of a viable due process claim
A.