With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". with Appellee’s chiropractic business. Though Appellant contends that Mr. Bodkin’s testimony was not based upon a sound valuation method and competent evidence, as required by Helfer I, this Court disagrees. Mr. Bodkin reviewed both experts’ written reports and his testimony revealed that he was clearly knowledgeable with regard to their valuation calculations. He explained, in detail, why he found the valuation calculation of Appellant wife’s expert to be seriously flawed and why he concurred with the valuation formulated by Appellee husband’s expert. Both Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Costanzo agreed that the business has no excess earnings, which supported Mr. Bodkin’s conclusion that there is no enterprise goodwill to be valued. See May, 214 W.Va. at 406 n. 18, 589 S.E.2d at 548 n. 18 (<HOLDING>)’” (quoting Alicia Brokars Kelly, “Sharing a

A: holding that state property tax liens are not entitled to the states statutory interest rate as a matter of law rather the appropriate rate of interest is determined by the equities of each case
B: recognizing that  goodwill is excess earning power once the normal rate of return for identifiable tangible and intangible assets is determined any rate of return in excess of a normal return is attributable to unidentifiable intangible assets  goodwill
C: holding that with respect to the eaja the local or national market rate for legal services cannot be a special factor used to increase the rate beyond the statutory rate
D: holding that the proper rate for prejudgment interest is the rate fixed by the parties in a contract
B.