With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and subsequent cases presenting similar remedy issues, the Supreme Court has not dictated a remedy from among the McKesson alternatives, but has instead remanded to the state courts to determine the appropriate remedy. E.g., McKesson, 496 U.S. at 51, 110 S.Ct. 2238; Fulton Corp., 516 U.S. at 347, 116 S.Ct. 848. Some state courts confronted with cases in which the McKesson remedial alternatives are available have left the selection of a remedy from among those alternatives to the taxing authority. See, e.g., PPG Industries, Inc. v. Com., Bd. of Fin. and Revenue, 567 Pa. 580, 790 A.2d 261, 270 (2001) (explaining McKesson alternatives and directing Commonwealth to provide a retrospective remedy consistent with opinion); Fulton Corp. v. Faulkner, 345 N.C. 419, 481 S.E.2d 8, 11 (1997) (<HOLDING>); Matter of Hawaiian Flour Mills, Inc., 76

A: holding that state legislature should determine whether to cure discriminatory tax by enforcing tax as to all or forgiving tax in its entirety
B: holding that the granting or denial of an urban renewal tax exemption is reviewable by tax appeal
C: holding refund of discriminatory tax required because predeprivation remedy not clearly available for tax years at issue
D: holding that property tax was a state tax and was thus disproportionate unreasonable and unfair because of discrepancies in tax rates of up to 400 between school districts
A.