With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 498 U.S. at 91, 111 S.Ct. 453. That case recognized that equitable tolling applied in suits against the government, but it did not discuss the availability of tolling based on mental illness. Id. at 95-96, 111 S.Ct. 453. Subsequently, United States v. Brockamp, 519 U.S. 347, 117 S.Ct. 849, 136 L.Ed.2d 818 (1997), a tax refund case, was decided. In Brockamp, the Ninth Circuit had determined that petitioners, who suffered from alcoholism and senility, were entitled to equitable tolling of 26 U.S.C. § 6511. 519 U.S. at 349, 117 S.Ct. 849. Although the Supreme Court concluded that section 6511 should not be subject to equitable tolling because the Irwin presumption had been rebutted, it said that “[mental disability], we assume, would permit a court to toll the statutory limitat 1991) (<HOLDING>); Cantrell v. Knoxville Cmty. Dev. Corp., 60

A: holding that 26 usc  6511 may not be equitably tolled but that mental incapacity is a grounds for tolling when available
B: holding that 42 usc  405g may be equitably tolled based on a plaintiffs mental impairment
C: holding that 5 usc  7703b2 can be tolled due to mental incapacity
D: holding that  2401b of the ftca can be equitably tolled
B.