With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Cameron Appraisal Dist. v. Rourk, 194 S.W.3d 501, 501-02 (Tex.2006) (describing appraisal-review-board proceeding as administrative). 9 . See Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 1.111(a). 10 . See id. % 41.413. 11 . See id. § 41.412(a). 12 . For purposes of our discussion, we assume without deciding that Lehn’s entering into the Appraisal Agreement was the equivalent of the chief appraiser's having done so and that Novosad, who was employed by Valero Energy (Valero Refining's corporate parent) could validly act as Valero Refining’s section-1.111(a) agent for purposes of entering into the Appraisal Agreement. See Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 1.111(e) (providing for agreement between appraisal district’s chief appraiser and property owner or owner’s agent); cf. Tour-neau Houston, Inc., 24 S.W.3d at 909 (<HOLDING>). These matters go to the merits of the

A: holding that subsidiary corporation that was not designated as parent corporations section1111a agent could not seek judicial review of appraisal boards decision
B: holding that to establish that subsidiary is agent of parent for jurisdictional purposes the parent must exert control that is so pervasive and continual that the subsidiary may be considered an agent or instrumentality of the parent notwithstanding the maintenance of corporate formalities
C: holding that parent corporation could not be held liable for any acts of whollyowned subsidiary although boards of directors of the two corporations overlapped in all other respects corporation had not disregarded subsidiarys corporate separateness had not involved itself directly in management of subsidiary and had not otherwise dominated or controlled subsidiary
D: holding that a parent corporations contacts may not be imputed to its subsidiary
A.