Task: songer_exhaust

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. You will be asked a question pertaining to some threshold issue at the trial court level. These issues are only considered to be present if the court of appeals is reviewing whether or not the litigants should properly have been allowed to get a trial court decision on the merits. That is, the issue is whether or not the issue crossed properly the threshhold to get on the district court agenda. The issue is: "Did the court determine that it would not hear the appeal for one of the following reasons: a) administrative remedies had not been exhausted; or b) the issue was not ripe for judicial action?" Answer the question based on the directionality of the appeals court decision. If the court discussed the issue in its opinion and answered the related question in the affirmative, answer "Yes". If the issue was discussed and the opinion answered the question negatively, answer "No". If the opinion considered the question but gave a mixed answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part, answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion does not discuss the issue, or notes that a particular issue was raised by one of the litigants but the court dismissed the issue as frivolous or trivial or not worthy of discussion for some other reason, answer "Issue not discussed". If the opinion considered the question but gave a "mixed" answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part (or if two issues treated separately by the court both fell within the area covered by one question and the court answered one question affirmatively and one negatively), answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion either did not consider or discuss the issue at all or if the opinion indicates that this issue was not worthy of consideration by the court of appeals even though it was discussed by the lower court or was raised in one of the briefs, answer "Issue not discussed".

PER CURIAM.
These consolidated cases determining deficiencies in income tax for the years 1934, 1935, and 1936, came on to be heard upon the records, briefs, and arguments of counsel; and it appearing that petitioner Katharine H. Perkins received two parcels of real property as gifts and that such parcels had been used by the donors for purposes of residence and pleasure, and that since acquisition thereof by the petitioner Katharine H. Perkins both parcels have been operated for profit; and that petitioners have claimed depreciation upon such property under Sections 113(a) and 114(a) of the Revenue Act of 1934, 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev.Code, §§ 113(a), 114(a), which provide that the basis “shall be the same as it would be in the hands of the donor”; and the court considering that the Board of Tax Appeals correctly decided that where non-business property is converted to a business use, the basis of depreciation is fair market value on the date of conversion (Heiner v. Tindle, 276 U.S. 582, 586, 587, 48 S.Ct. 326, 72 L.Ed. 714) ; and no reversible error with respect to any other issues appearing in the decisions of the Board of Tax Appeals:
It is ordered that the decisions be and they hereby are affirmed.

Question: Did the court determine that it would not hear the appeal for one of the following reasons: a) administrative remedies had not been exhausted; or b) the issue was not ripe for judicial action?
A. No
B. Yes
C. Mixed answer
D. Issue not discussed
Answer:

Answer: D