With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 1. The evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find that Ronald and Ele cia Stacey (together, the “Defendants”) had a tax due and owing. The certificates of assessment were neither challenged nor proved to be invalid. See United States v. Voorhies, 658 F.2d 710, 715 (9th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>). 2. Whether or not Mrs. Stacey knew of the tax

A: holding that a new tax assessment formula enacted after the beginning of the period of assessment but applied to the entire tax year was a clear instance of a statute acting prospectively on facts or conditions in existence prior to its enactment
B: holding that operates as a charge of debtors in personam tax liability not debtors in rem tax liability
C: holding that massachusetts provides an adequate remedy for challenging a real estate tax assessment
D: recognizing certificates of assessment as adequate evidence of tax liability
D.