With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 304 F.2d 125 (2d Cir.1962); Bisbee-Baldwin Corp. v. Tomlinson, 320 F.2d 929 (5th Cir.1963). In Stoller, the D.C. Circuit distinguished the Ferrer “substance over form” line of eases from the Holly contract cancellations by finding that “[h]ere, ... the underlying contracts were cancelled in substance as well as in form. When a contract was cancelled, it did not merely change hands; it ceased to exist altogether.” 994 F.2d at 857. Notwithstanding the D.C. Circuit’s earlier holding in Stoller, the Tax Court majority in this case found that, since the economic result is the same whether a forward contract is closed by offset or cancellation, the character of the gain or loss to be recognized should be the same. The Tax Court applied the analysis of Commissioner v. Covington, supra, (<HOLDING>) to contracts which were closed by cancellation

A: holding that contracts should be interpreted to avoid absurd results
B: holding defendants loss of investment inappropriate as offset against illgotten gains
C: holding that the court was not bound by the parties agreement that contracts were unambiguous and holding that contracts were ambiguous
D: holding that termination of contracts by offset results in capital gain or loss
D.