With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of a requirement that the carrier segregate escrow funds is not determinative of whether a trust was intended and, in this case, merits little weight in enforcing plaintiffs’ rights. The proposed requirement to segregate escrow funds was deleted by the ICC from the final version of § 376.12(k) to “assist the lessors in meeting their own, often pressing needs for ready cash.” Lease and Interchange of Vehicles, 129 M.C.C. at 725. Additional safeguards, in the form of more rigorous accounting requirements, were added, and the modification did not serve to enhance the carriers’ interest in these funds. Id. at 726. The commingling of the escrow funds with other monies therefore does not, under these circumstances, defeat a trust relationship. See Begier, 496 U.S. at 60-62, 110 S.Ct. 2258 (<HOLDING>); 7 C.F.R. § 46.46(b) (2007) (“[PACA] [t]rust

A: holding language sufficient to override antialienation provisions of internal revenue code with respect to pension fund
B: holding that beneficiary of general support trust has a legal right to compel distribution of funds internal quotation marks omitted
C: holding that the segregation of funds was not a prerequisite to the establishment of a statutory trust under the internal revenue code
D: holding that companys president was trustee of trust funds because he had control and direction over the funds
C.