With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Cases and Proceedings Nunc Pro Tunc dated August 3, 1984. This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1), (b)(2)(B), and (L). 2 . The letter does not give an address for the Financial Litigation Unit, but in argument, the Debtors' attorney asserted that the, letter was sent to the Financial Litigation Unit in Fort Worth, Texas. 3 .The docket sheet reflects that the confirmation hearing was held on March 31, 1992 and the court announced at that time it would confirm the plan. The Debtors’ attorney did not submit the order confirming the plan until June 8, 1992. 4 . The Bankruptcy Code is 11 U.S.C. § 101 etseq. References United States (In re Burns), 887 F.2d 1541, 1543 (11th Cir.1989); see also United States v. Gurwitch (In re Gurwitch) 794 F.2d 584 (11th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). 7 . This Memorandum shall constitute Findings

A: holding that irs was bound by plan and bankruptcy codes method of determining amount of nondischargeable claim where irs had filed proof of claim for nondischargeable tax debt
B: holding that following confirmation of the debtors chapter 11 plan the internal revenue service could collect a nondischargeable tax claim that was not listed in the irss bankruptcy claim
C: holding that confirmation of a chapter 11 plan creates a binding contract which may be enforced in state courts
D: holding that in a chapter 7 case postpetition interest on a nondischargeable tax claim is also nondischargeable
B.