With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". deductible under the more general “ordinary and necessary” provisions of § 162 is equally unpre-vailing. Meals are not deductible unless the expense is different from or in excess of that which would have been made for the taxpayer’s personal purposes. Moss v. Commissioner, 758 F.2d 211, 213 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 979, 106 S.Ct. 382, 88 L.Ed.2d 335 (1985). Judge Putnam alleges no purpose for his lunches, other than his own subsistence, and we can not see how these expenditures aided the development or business of the federal district courts. The federal courts did not dictate the location, duration or content of Judge Putnam’s midday meals. See Christey v. United States, 841 F.2d 809 (8th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1016, 109 S.Ct. 1131, 103 L.Ed.2d 193 (1989) (<HOLDING>). Similarly, the argument that Judge Putnam

A: holding that because state imposed substantial restrictions on state troopers lunch arrangements lunch expenses were deductible as ordinary and necessary business expenses under general provisions of  162a
B: holding that a state agency created under state law was a state actor
C: holding a state has a substantial interest in regulating the practice of law within the state
D: holding that the state police is a state agency
A.