With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that would have exempted his property from the hen. Likewise, in Horacek v. Cherry Creek Corp., the Colorado Court of Appeals noted that the wage and withholding, sales, and use tax statutes and ordinance made it clear that mere use of personal property subjected it to the lien even if the using party did not own the property. 28 Colo.App. 258, 472 P.2d 158, 161 (1970) (citing Colo.Rev.Stat. § 138-5-23(1)(a) (“of or used by any retailer under lease”), § 138-1-61(7) (1963) (“owned or used by”), and Denver, Colo., Ordinance § 166.38-1 (“of any retailer or used by any retailer in conducting his business under lease.”)). Cf. Charnes v. Norwest Leasing, Inc., 787 P.2d 145, 146 n. 2 (Colo.1990) (en banc) (citing Colo.Rev.Stat. § 39-26-117(1)(b) (“of or used by any retailer under lease”)) (<HOLDING>). The tax statutes applicable to this case do

A: holding that substantial compliance with the requirements for exempting a lessors personal property from a lien is not enough
B: holding that the lien bond releases the property from the lien but the lien is then secured by the bond
C: holding that substantial compliance is sufficient to satisfy the notice requirements of sdcl 3212 and 3
D: holding that substantial compliance with notice is sufficient
A.