With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that the machinery was used for the infringing items) [but] under the incremental approach, no deduction at all would be allowed for such costs. 290 . 3/5/07 Anson Deposition at 238. 291 . As to the permissibility of reducing the defendant’s profit by a proportionate amount of taxes, the New Line court found a split of authority. The cases cited are L.P. Larson, Jr., Co. v. William Wrigley, Jr., Co., 277 U.S. 97, 99-100, 48 S.Ct. 449, 72 L.Ed. 800 (1928) (rejecting deduction of taxes for a willful in-fringer but holding that deductibility depends on the circumstances); W.E. Bassett Co. v. Revlon, Inc., 435 F.2d 656, 665 (2d Cir.1970) (allowing defendants to deduct income tax payments despite willful infringement); In Design v. K-Mart Apparel Corp., 13 F.3d 559, 566-567 (2d Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Under this case law, deductibility of the

A: holding petitioner could not deduct real estate taxes imposed on property he did not own because these taxes were not imposed on him
B: holding that taxes were a claim against the estate that had to be filed in probate court thus reversing an order requiring heirs to pay taxes on estate property because the district court did not have jurisdiction
C: holding nonwillful infringer was entitled to deduct taxes paid on its innocentlyacquired unlawful profits
D: holding that a refund may include additional taxes paid after the filing of a refund claim so long as the total does not exceed the portion of tax paid prior to the administrative claim
C.