With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". establish the second requirement for waiver, i.e., that there is probable cause to believe that the property will be held exempt. Therefore, Crossroads cannot fulfill the criteria for waiver of tax payments, regardless of whether we hold unconstitutional the requirement in Minn.Stat. § 278.03, subd. 1(3), that churches establish financial hardship. Accordingly, Crossroads’ claim presents a moot question that we need not review. Crossroads’ second argument is that the tax court’s decision violated its freedom of contract, and its third argument is that Minn.Stat. § 272.02, subd. 38(b), violates Article 10, Section 1, of the Minnesota Constitution. We will not consider on appeal issues not raised before or addressed by the tax court. See Thiele v. Stick, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn.1988) (<HOLDING>). We have examined Crossroads’ submissions to

A: holding that as a general rule this court will not consider an issue that was not raised below
B: holding that issues not raised in the trial court may not be raised later on appeal
C: recognizing general rule that an appellate court cannot address claims that were not raised below
D: holding that a reviewing court will not address those issues not raised below or not addressed by the trial court
D.