With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 610 S.W.2d 147, 151 (Tex.1980). Mr. Jame-son’s will was unambiguous. It expressly directed that Andrew receive shares in accordance with an independent appraisal. Even if Rauscher based Mr. John’s estate’s Appraisal on unreliable assumptions, as the IRS asserts, this fact does not alter Mr. Jameson’s explicit intent to transfer shares in accordance with the valuation. Granted, the $86.80 Johnco share value that Helen reported on her husband’s estate tax return is inconsistent with Rauscher’s $44.65 valuation. This discrepancy might be important if we were valuing Johnco shares at Mr. Jameson’s death, but we are not. Our sole inquiry is to determine the number of shares that Mr. Jameson granted to Andrew through his will. Since the IRS does not argue that the R 747, 44 L.Ed. 969 (1900) (<HOLDING>). These decisions have instead characterized

A: holding that the tax was indirect even though the recipient could not shift the tax to others
B: holding that the tax was not direct even though the government imposed it on the estate rather than the recipient
C: 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
D: holding that state legislature should determine whether to cure discriminatory tax by enforcing tax as to all or forgiving tax in its entirety
A.