With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Grp., Inc. v. United States, 658 F.3d 276 (2d Cir.2011) (affirming jury finding that a series of LILO and other transactions did not withstand the substance-over-form inquiry); Wells Fargo, 641 F.3d 1319 (Fed.Cir.2011) (same as to SILO transaction involving public transit vehicles); BB & T Corp. v. United States, 523 F.3d 461, 464 (4th Cir.2008) (affirming district court’s conclusion that “although the form involved a lease financed by a loan, BB & T did not actually acquire a genuine leasehold interest”); AWG Leasing Trust v. United States, 592 F.Supp.2d 953, 981-82 (N.D.Ohio 2008) (finding that in SILO transaction, taxpayer never obtained ownership interest in German waste-to-energy disposal treatment plant to support deductions); John Hancock Life Ins., 141 T.C. at 54-55 (2013) (<HOLDING>). In each of these cases, the court found that

A: holding to prove possession the state must show that a defendant possessed a certain substance the substance was illegal and he had knowledge of the presence of the substance
B: holding that identity of parties for res judicata purposes is a determination of substance not mere form
C: holding that the substance of lilo transactions were not consistent with their legal form precluding various deductions
D: holding that quantity of the controlled substance does not have to be measurable to support a conviction for possession of such controlled substance particularly when the immeasurable amount of the substance is found on an implement used to consume the substance
C.