With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 513 U.S. 1079, 115 S.Ct. 727, 130 L.Ed.2d 631 (1995); Wolf v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 4 F.3d 709 (9th Cir.1993); Pasternak v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 990 F.2d 893 (6th Cir.1993); Cannon v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 949 F.2d 345 (10th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 505 U.S. 1220, 112 S.Ct. 3030, 120 L.Ed.2d 901 (1992); Evans v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 908 F.2d 369 (8th Cir.1990); Simon v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 830 F.2d 499 (3d Cir.1987); Tallal v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 778 F.2d 275 (5th Cir. 1985). Other cases cited by defendant hold that the sham transaction determination must be made at the partnership level, but involve situations in which no determination as to that issue was made prior to the filing of a partner-level suit. See, e.g., Schell, 84 Fed.Cl. at 168 (<HOLDING>). There can, of course, be instances in which

A: holding that court had no supplemental jurisdiction over claim by shareholder for breach of merger agreement that was the subject of the dispute between the merger partners over which the district court had subject matter jurisdiction
B: holding that because the state failed to properly file the complaint the district court lacked jurisdiction to proceed to trial
C: holding that buyers of real property who were in constructive possession of the property had made a down payment and had signed a contract to purchase at the time of the loss had an insurable interest in the property despite a court determination two years after the loss that the agreement to purchase was not binding
D: holding that the court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate a partners abandonment loss deduction claim because no applicable sham determination had been made at the partnership level
D.