With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". summary judgment, should be reversed for the following reasons: (1) Hawaii assessed general excise taxes on only that portion of Lynden’s gross receipts that are properly allocated to the ground transportation and other non-air services of its freight forwarding business, and not on “air transportation” as defined by 49 U.S.C. § 40102 (1994); and (2) the Tax Appeal Court erred in concluding as a matter of law that, as applied, 49 U.S.C. § 40116 (1994) preempts Hawaii from imposing general excise taxes on the portion of Lynden’s revenues allocated to the ground transportation and other non-air services of its freight forwarding business. Based on our recent decision in In re Tax Appeal of Kamikawa v. United Parcel Service [ (UPS) ], Inc., 88 Hawai'i 336, 338, 966 P.2d 648, 650 (1998) (<HOLDING>), we agree with Kamikawa’s contentions on

A: holding gross receipts provision provides exception for trade or business to general meaning of gross income provided in section 61a so reporting of gross proceeds alone from sales of commodities would not prevent application of irc  6501e1a
B: holding that 49 usc  1301 and 1513 did not preempt hrs  2396 hawaiis public service company tax statute insofar as it applied to the gross receipts that ups received for the ground transportation portion of packages that travel partly by air
C: holding that erisa does not expressly preempt colo rev stat  10311162 as enforcement of the statute would dictate to the insurance company the conditions under which it must pay for the risk that it has assumed
D: recognizing a pipeline company as a public service corporation even though it was not expressly named as such
B.