With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of proof, which is not surprising, as it misunderstood its burden of proof when this case was first tried in 2006. Accordingly, we reverse the third final decision of the Tax Commission and remand to the Tax Commission for the Tax Commission to enter a decision reducing the assessment of the property to $96,458,707.00, the value as listed by taxpayer IBM. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Judge STEPHENS concurs. Judge BEASLEY concurs in result only. 1 . “This evidence,” in context, refers to (1) the NACOMEX report; (2) testimony of IBM’s valuation expert, Mr. Zises; (3) testimony of Durham County’s expert, Mr. Baker, who developed Schedule U5’s depreciation tables, as modified after the Tax Commission’s decision In re Appeals of Northern Telecom, N.C. St. Tax Rep. (CCH) P 201-813 (May 20, 1994) (<HOLDING>), who testified that the tables “were not based

A: holding that values obtained using a former version of schedule u5 were deficient because the assessor failed to consider market information about the prices of new and used equipment in the taxpayers industry
B: holding that fair and reasonable market value of stolen property may be established in larceny prosecution by evidence of wholesale or retail values or both and if both are sufficient to establish grand larceny then it is immaterial whether computation of market value is by reference to wholesale or retail prices
C: holding that timber contractor bore the general risk of changing market prices and could not be deemed compelled to defer removal simply by the fact of low prices
D: holding that a plaintiff claiming monopolization is obligated to establish the relevant market because the power to control prices or exclude competition only makes sense with reference to a particular market
A.