With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". at $429,500. It shows that $429,500 as exempt from taxation. Nothing in the record indicates that the values shown on either the Real Property Tax List or the Exempt Property List changed between 1975 and 1982, and there is no dispute about the tax treatment of the property for those years. In May 1982, counsel for plaintiff wrote to Corporation Counsel for the City to say that plaintiff had constructed an addition to the original building. He said that the addition had cost $557,000 and asked whether the new structure was covered by the financial agreement. While the appendix does not show any response to that question, plaintiff acknowledges that the completed addition was not covered by the tax abatement agreement. See Tru, Urban Renewal Corp. v. City of Newark, 11 N.J.Tax 63 (1990) (<HOLDING>). For 1983, the Real Property Tax List shows

A: holding that the debtor could retain exempt property because it was not property of the estate
B: holding that property not subject to sequestration is not therefore exempt
C: holding that an addition to an abated property is not exempt
D: recognizing that exempt property ceases to be property of the estate
C.