With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". has been amply analyzed, however, within the context of state exemption statutes for public assistance benefits. One court allowed the EIC exemption under a state statute providing the exemption for “local public assistance benefits,” but did so because the trustee failed to object on the basis of whether or not the EIC was a “local” public assistance benefit. See In re Davis, 136 B.R. 203, 207 (Bankr.S.D.Iowa 1991). The same court apparently later held, on a trustee’s objection based particularly on the “local” issue, that the EIC is not a “local public assistance benefit” under Iowa law. See In re Boyett, 250 B.R. 822, 824-825 (Bankr. S.D.Ga.2000), citing Matter of Peckham, No. 97-01117-WH (Bankr.S.D.Iowa 1998) (unpublished); Matter of Crouch, No. 96-23085-D (Bankr.ND.Iowa 1997) (<HOLDING>). In determining that “federal disaster relief

A: recognizing the benefit of alternative determinations in the social security review process
B: holding that an eic was neither a social security benefit nor a local public assistance benefit
C: holding that law enforcement commission was a benefit of employment
D: holding that the claims to a statutory benefit had not yet vested when the legislature eliminated the benefit
B.