With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Apex are evident in this case: the viability of the legal malpractice claims alleged by the clients depends on the outcome of personal injury litigation in Mexico and in federal court, where the only procedural progress has been the determination of a presumptive forum in Mexico. See id. The alleged injuries are intertwined with and dependent upon further hypothetical adjudication by both Mexican courts and the federal district court. Similarly, in the context of accounting malpractice, the Texas Supreme Court held that a cause of action for' negligence based on the accountant’s use of the cash instead of the accrual method of accounting for tax purposes did not accrue until the Internal Revenue Service had assessed a tax deficiency. Atkins v. Crosland, 417 S.W.2d 150, 158 (Tex.1967) (<HOLDING>); see also Street v. Honorable Second Court of

A: holding that cause of action for malpractice did not arise until the tax deficiency was assessed because prior to assessment the plaintiff had not been injured
B: holding that a tax refund claim must be dismissed if the principal tax deficiency has not been paid in full
C: holding that plaintiffs legal malpractice claim was not ripe until the appeal had been exhausted because plaintiffs harm remained speculative until then
D: holding that a second deficiency notice issued for a taxable year was valid where it determined a deficiency in a different type of tax than did the earlier deficiency notice
A.