With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". On this appeal, Icarom also argues that it is an instrumentality under the “organ” prong of , 856 F.2d 1375, 1379 & n. 2 (9th Cir.1988). A. The majority of Icarom’s shares are not owned by a foreign state. In its removal petition and on this appeal, Icarom argues it is an instrumentality of a foreign state because the majority of its shares are held by Ireland through the holding company SAT. In Gates and Patrickson v. Dole Food Company, Inc., 251 F.3d 795 (9th Cir.2001), we held that a majority-owned subsidiary of an “instrumentality of a foreign state” is not itself an “instrumentality” under the FSIA. Id. at 807; Gates, 54 F.3d at 1462-63. This includes corporations that are subsidiaries of corporations that are owned by the foreign government. Patrickson, 251 F.3d 795, 807 (<HOLDING>). Icarom is not directly owned by Ireland but

A: holding that a party waived the right to allege contrary facts on appeal eg that defendant was not an agent or instrumentality of the mexican government for sovereign immunity purposes where the party alleged that the defendant was an agent or instrumentality in its complaint
B: holding majorityowned subsidiary of a government owned corporation is not an instrumentality of a foreign state
C: holding that resident shareholder of s corporation is eligible for tax credit for taxes paid by corporation in another state and noting that this conclusion is consistent with the internal revenue code which provides that shareholders of an s corporation are entitled to a foreign tax credit for their share of foreign income tax paid by an s corporation
D: holding that the actual amount of capital employed in the state by a foreign corporation was to be based on the property of the corporation that was within the state and that was used in business transacted within the state
B.