With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". did not provide a basis on which this Court could decline to subordinate the IRS’s claim. Finally, the trustee argued that the non-pecuniary, IRS-imposed penalty lacked an equitable foundation. DISCUSSION The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, like two other Circuit Courts of Appeals, has held that section 510(c) of the Bankruptcy Code gives a court presiding over a Chapter 11 liquidation bankruptcy the power to subordinate a government’s claims for non-peeu-niary loss tax penalties to the claims of non-insider, general, unsecured creditors. Schultz Broadway Inn v. U.S., 912 F.2d 230, 234 (8th Cir.1990) see Burden v. U.S., 917 F.2d 115 (3rd Cir.1990); In re Virtual Network Servs. Corp., 902 F.2d 1246 (7th Cir.1990); see also In re Landbank Equity Corp., 973 F.2d 265, 271 (4th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). The Schultz Broadway Inn case involved the

A: holding that equitable relief under rico is available only to the government
B: recognizing that equitable doctrines such as subordination are available for use in some bankruptcy cases
C: holding that dischargeability proceedings are inherently equitable in nature and as such parties are not entitled to jury trials
D: recognizing that equitable tolling doctrines may toll the time period for filing
B.