Task: songer_genstand

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. You will be asked a question pertaining to issues that may appear in civil law issues involving government actors. The issue is: "Did the agency articulate the appropriate general standard?" This question includes whether the agency interpreted the statute "correctly". The courts often refer here to the rational basis test, plain meaning, reasonable construction of the statute, congressional intent, etc. This issue also includes question of which law applies or whether amended law vs law before amendment applies. 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.
This is a petition to review a- decision of the Board of Tax Appeals which held petitioner liable for income taxes, during the years 1920 and 1921, on commissions received by him as compensation for services in collecting delinquent state and county taxes. Those services were rendered under contracts which petitioner had with the state tax commissioner of Georgia and boards of commissioners of several counties of Georgia. The contract with the state tax commissioner was authorized by act of the Legislature, Georgia Laws of 1919, page 55; and it will be assumed that the contracts. with the counties were also authorized by that act. Employment under each contract was subject to be terminated on short notice. Petitioner claims that his income was exempt from federal taxation under the Revenue Act of 1926, § 1211 (26 USCA § 1065-b) on the ground that he was an officer or employee of the state and political subdivisions thereof; hut, under the decisions of the Supreme Court in Metcalf v. Mitchell, 269 U. S. 514, 46 S. Ct. 172, 70 L. Ed. 384, and Lucas v. Howard, 280 U. S. 526, 50 S. Ct. 87, 74 L. Ed. 593, he must be held to have been an independent contractor, and not entitled to- claim exemption because of the nature of his services.
The petition for review is denied.

Question: Did the agency articulate the appropriate general standard? This question includes whether the agency interpreted the statute "correctly". The courts often refer here to the rational basis test, plain meaning, reasonable construction of the statute, congressional intent, etc. This issue also includes question of which law applies or whether amended law vs law before amendment applies.
A. No
B. Yes
C. Mixed answer
D. Issue not discussed
Answer:

Answer: B