With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". summonses for criminal investigations). The defense counters that the “good faith” requirement remains in force. For example, in U.S. v. Lawn Builders of New England, 856 F.2d 388, 391-92 (1st Cir.1988), which post-dated the 1982 amendments but did not examine their effect, the First Circuit stated that for a summons to be enforceable, the IRS “must not have abandoned the pursuit of civil tax determination or collection.” See also U.S. v. Michaud, 907 F.2d 750, 752 (7th Cir.1990); Hintze v. IRS, 879 F.2d 121, 127 (4th Cir.1989) (“The tax payers here might well have prevailed, moreover, had they succeeded in showing that the IRS was pursuing its investigation for the sole purpose of building a case on anticipated criminal charges”); U.S. v. MacKenzie, 777 F.2d 811, 819 (2d Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). While the law is thin, if I had to decide the

A: holding that a decedents tax settlement with the irs did not establish the value of his estates claim against the irs as a matter of law
B: holding that law allows inquiry into irs good faith even if the summonses were issued before a criminal recommendation
C: holding that bad faith includes lack of good faith in investigating the facts of a complaint
D: holding that the irs has a law enforcement purpose in the context of a criminal tax investigation
B.