With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Circuit adopted a 50/50 split for tenants by the entireties because a 50/50 split was “far simpler and less speculative,” and because the Third Circuit viewed a § 7403 sale as equivalent to a consensual sale, id. However, the far greater weight of the cases support a different approach. See Harris v. United States, 764 F.2d 1126, 1131-32 (5th Cir.1985) (valuing the spouses’ life estates and contingent survivor interests and determining that, based on her higher life expectancy, the wife had a 50.98% interest.); United States v. Gibbons, 71 F.3d 1496, 1500 (10th Cir.1995) (requiring the valuation of an ex-wife’s life estate and survivor interest and concluding that she was entitled to greater than one-half the total value of the property); In re Pletz, 221 F.3d 1114, 1117 (9th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). Likewise, while this Circuit has never

A: holding that proper valuation requires consideration of the life expectancies of the joint tenants and rejecting the proposition that the wifes share was limited to a half interest in the life estate
B: holding that an effective life sentence of fortyfive years for seconddegree forgery was excessive and that a life sentence was cruel and unusual in violation of the eighth amendment
C: holding that an easement cannot be created in favor of an estate for years extending beyond the life of the estate
D: holding that where the will did not provide the life tenant with the power to sell and it was not necessary to sell the property for the payment of estate expenses the life tenant was not entitled to the proceeds from the sale of the property instead the proceeds became a part of the residuary estate
A.