With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Act of 1934, as amended, 25 U.S.C. 477, or under section 3 of the Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act, as amended, 25 U.S.C. 503, are not recognized as separate entities for federal tax purposes. [26 C.F.R. sec. 301.7701-l(a)(3), Proced. & Admin. Regs.] This regulation mentions the twofold basis for Uniband’s argument — “integral part” and section 17 of the IRA. 3. Uniband is not an “integral part” of TMBCI. Uniband argues that it is an “integral part” of TMBCI and should therefore share in TMBCI’s exemption from Federal income tax, notwithstanding its ostensibly distinct corporate status. We note that the regulation quoted above states an exception for “an integral part of the State” (emphasis added); but an Indian tribe is not a State. See, e.g., Chickasaw Nation, 534 U.S. at 86 (<HOLDING>); Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior

A: holding that an indian tribes exercise of criminal jurisdiction over nonindians is inconsistent with the domesticdependent status of the tribes and that tribes may not assume such jurisdiction without congressional authorization
B: holding that federal legislation with respect to indian tribes  is not based upon impermissible racial classifications and noting that article i  8 of the constitution gives congress the power to regulate commerce  with the indian tribes
C: holding indian tribes subject to gamblingrelated taxes from which states are exempt
D: holding that indian tribes lack tribal jurisdiction over crimes committed by nonmember indians within the tribes reservation
C.