With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Anderson v. U.S. Sec’y of Agric., 30 CIT _, Slip Op. 06-186 (Dec. 20, 2006) (not published in the Federal Supplement); and that the Department cannot simply compare one line of a producer’s tax return when determining net fishing income, see Lady Kim T. Inc. v. U.S. Sec’y of Agric., 30 CIT _, _, Slip Op. 06-183 at 14-15 (Dec. 15, 2006) (not published in the Federal Supplement) (remanding the Department’s denial of a producer’s application for benefits with instructions for the agency to explain the reasons behind its negative determination). In addition, the Federal Circuit has indicated that the Department’s determination should include an examination of documents other than a producer’s tax returns. See Steen v. United States, 468 F.3d 1357, 1360-61, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (<HOLDING>). . . Further support for this view is found in

A: holding that the entirety of litigation settlement proceeds was taxable income to client not net after payment of attorney fees
B: holding a state cannot impose an income tax on indians whose income is solely from reservation sources
C: holding that a state may tax the net income from the interstate operations of a foreign corporation  provided the levy is not discriminatory and is properly apportioned to local activities within the taxing state forming sufficient nexus to support the same
D: holding that net farm income when applied to a producer in the fishing industry means net income from all fishing activity not just that income from a particular commodity and further providing that the regulations make it reasonably clear that the determination of   net fishing income is not to be made solely on the basis of tax return information if other information is relevant to determining the producers net income from all   fishing sources
D.