With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to make individual assessments against Debtors because they are jointly and severally liable for the debts of the Partnership under California law. This argument overreaches under state law. Superficially, the IRS’s argument is logical. The IRS assessed unpaid employment taxes against the Partnership in 1994, 1995, and 1996. Therefore, under federal law, the IRS has a right to bring proceedings against the Partnership to collect those taxes for up to ten years after assessment, in this case until 2004, 2005, and 2006. 26 U.S.C. § 6502(a)(1). Under California law, general partners such as Debtors are “liable jointly and severally for all obligations of the partnership unless otherwise agreed by the claimant or provided by law.” Cal. Corp.Code § 16306(a); see also Young, 283 F.2d at 910 (<HOLDING>). Because the assessed employment taxes are a

A: holding that under the texas uniform partnership act the government was entitled to collect the  tax liability indisputably a partnership debt from any one of the general partners
B: holding that under california law partners are personally liable for the debts and liabilities of the partnership including its tax liability
C: holding that general partners must notify limited partners of partnership opportunity to purchase adjacent property but not addressing whether  9404 requires affirmative consent of partners after such notice
D: holding that although a corporate officer is not presumed to be personally liable for corporate debts the officer may expressly bind himself or herself to be answerable for such debts
B.