With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (2010), and 2011, Admin R. M. 42.14.101(10) (2011). The 2010 version of Admin R. M. 42.14.101 took effect on November 27,2010. Accordingly, we refer to the 2003 version because that is the version that was in effect when the Department filed suit on November 8,2010. 3 We further note that there is support for our decision in other jurisdictions. See City of Gallup v. Hotels.com, LP, No. 06-0549-JC, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86720, at *5, 13-14 (D.N.M. Jan. 30,2007) (taxing the entire amount that a hotel guest pays an OTC as the “total amount of rent paid for lodging,” collected by the “vendor”) (citing City of Gallup Lodger’s Tax Ordinance §§ 3-2C-3,3-2C-7); City of Fairview Heights v. Orbitz, Inc., No. 05-CV-840-DRH, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47085, at *19-20 (S.D. Ill. July 12, 2006) (<HOLDING>) (citing Fairview Heights, Ill., Code §

A: holding that sjince the consumer cannot obtain the right to occupy the room without paying the retail room rate charged by the otc that retail rate is the taxable amount or rent  where rent means the consideration received for occupancy valued in money
B: holding that the rent charged is the amount that a hotel room occupant paid to the otc not the negotiated wholesale rate
C: holding that a dog sniff of the area outside the door of a hotel room is not a search under the fourth amendment or the texas constitution because the dogs sniff does not explore the details of the hotel room and the sniff reveals nothing about the room other than the presence of cocaine in which there is no legitimate privacy interest
D: holding that a 7 excise tax based on the charge to the public for a hotel room applied to the price expedia demands from the consumer for the right to occupy the hotel room and not the price expedia agrees to pay the hotel for the room
B.