With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Pair Enterprises, 489 U.S. 235, 109 S.Ct. 1026, 103 L.Ed.2d 290 (1989), mandate that the Bankruptcy Code be interpreted to give effect to the plain meaning of its terms, and since § 727(e)(1) is clear and unambiguous in its terms, it should be enforced as written with no exceptions. The Trustee counters by pointing to a number of decisions where equitable tolling has been applied to extend statutes of limitation on bankruptcy causes of action. See e.g., In re White, 104 B.R. 951 (S.D.Ind.1989) (equitable tolling applicable to 11 U.S.C. § 546(a), providing the statutes of limitation for bringing avoidance actions by the trustee under § 544, 545, 547, 548 or 553 of the Bankruptcy Code); In re Butcher, 72 B.R. 247 (Bankr.E.D.Tenn.1987) (same); In re Mufti 61 B.R. 514 (Bankr.C.D.Cal.1986) (<HOLDING>). This court finds persuasive the reasoning of

A: holding that the 120day filing period is subject to equitable tolling and addressing circumstances warranting equitable tolling
B: holding that the filing deadline under title vii is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit in federal court but a requirement that like a statute of limitations is subject to waiver estoppel and equitable tolling
C: holding that the general equitable tolling doctrine is read into every statute of limitations
D: holding that equitable tolling applied to federal rule of bankruptcy procedure 4004 providing the statute of limitations for filing objections to discharge
D.