With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". injured party in as good a position as it would have been in but for the breach.” Id. We have stated that the “failure to allege cognizable damages compels the dismissal of the complaint.” Chrysler Corp. v. Fedders Corp., 643 F.2d 1229, 1234 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 893, 102 S.Ct. 388, 70 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981). In this case, PONI alleges that as a result of MVP’s breach of the contract, PONI was required to pay a top-heavy contribution of $137,087.17 for the years 1991-1998, pay a fine of $5,000, and incur costs of $35,000. Analogizing to back-taxes cases, MVP argues that there was no harm because PONI would have had to pay the contribution amount even if MVP performed the top-heavy testing. MVP Br. at 35-37; see DCD Programs Ltd. v. Leighton, 90 F.3d 1442, 1451 (9th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Specifically, MVP argues PONI would not have

A: holding that irs claim for taxes and claim of debtor against irs for violation of automatic stay did not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence
B: holding that punitive damages are not recoverable against municipalities under  1988
C: holding that back taxes paid to the irs as a result of disallowed deductions are not recoverable damages against promoters
D: holding that it was not an abuse of discretion to require a defendant to pay all back taxes
C.