With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in its 2009 Chief Counsel Advice statement, is both reasonable and persuasive. First, it is consistent with the text of the statute: the language of § 163(h)(3) is reasonably read to establish that the debt limit of $1.1 million per qualified residence applies regardless whether there is one owner or two co-owners. The fact that “acquisition indebtedness” is defined as debt secured by a qualified residence suggests that Congress also contemplated that the “aggregate amount treated as acquisition indebtedness” was also defined with respect to a qualified residence. 26 U.S.C. § 163(h)(3)(B). And the IRS’s interpretation is more persuasive than Voss and Sophy’s interpretation, which would result in a windfall to unmarried taxpayers. See Tablada v. Thomas, 538 F.3d 800, 807 (9th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). There is no basis to infer that Congress

A: holding that the bureau of prisonss method for calculating good time credits was a reasonable interpretation of the statute in part because the plaintiffs contrary method would result in a windfall to prisoners that congress did not intend
B: recognizing offset method
C: recognizing this method of submission
D: recognizing this method
A.