With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in the manner described, it shall set forth its reasons in a supporting memorandum by March 21, 2008, to which the Bank and/or IRS may respond by April 4, 2008. If — given the particular facts of this case — DOR is content to abide by the court’s ruling, it shall so notify the other parties and, with the consent of those parties, provide to the court the figures to be distributed out of the fund as of March 28, 2008. IT IS SO ORDERED. 1 . It should be noted that DOR asserts no claim of sovereign immunity, thereby conceding the power of the court to resolve the parties' dispute in this forum. Compare Hudson Sav. Bank v. Austin, 479 F.3d 102, 108-09 (1st Cir.2007). 2 . See also Bridgewater Sav. Bank v. United States, 42 A.F.T.R.2d. 78-5133, 1978 WL 4507, at *3, (D.Mass. May 11, 1978) (<HOLDING>). The court’s ruling, however, did not, as a

A: holding that the united states court of federal claims does not have jurisdiction to enter declaratory judgment that taxpayers were not liable for any type of federal income tax or to issue injunction permanently removing the tax liens on property and levies on wages
B: holding that priority unsecured claimants are entitled to payment only to the extent of the amount of the tax hens then if such claims happen to equal or exceed the amount of statutory tax liens the statutory tax hens are paid behind the claims of junior consensual henholders
C: holding that two federal tax liens had priority as a matter of law over the competing claims for fees and costs of a stakeholderbank
D: holding that a judgment resolving the question of the priority of the federal tax lien   constitutes a final and appealable order over which we have jurisdiction
C.