Task: songer_othcrim

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. The issue is: "Did the court rule for the defendant on grounds other than procedural grounds? For example, right to speedy trial, double jeopardy, confrontation, retroactivity, self defense." This includes the question of whether the defendant waived the right to raise some claim. 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". If the court answered the question in the affirmative, but the error articulated by the court was judged to be harmless, answer "Yes, but error was harmless". 

PER CURIAM.
This case involves deficiencies in income taxes determined against the taxpayers for the years 1960 and 1961.
The taxpayers, airline pilots of Southern Airways, Inc., went on strike in June 1960 and during 1960 and 1961 received strike benefit payments from their union, Air Line Pilots Association. The Commissioner determined that the amounts of strike benefits received by the taxpayers were includable in gross income.
In an opinion published at 47 T.C. 399, the Tax Court held that the strike payments constitute gross income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment and Section 61(a) of the Internal Revenue Code and are not excludable from gross income as gifts under Section 102 (a) of the Code. The Tax Court found that the strike benefits were paid pursuant to an established formula, based upon each pilot’s airline income for the preceding year, and were paid from assessments .made by the association against member pilots who were not engaged in any work stoppage. A minimum requirement for the receipt of benefits was that the recipient refrain from flying the planes of the airline. The Tax Court further found that payment of benefits was not conditioned upon the needs of the pilot.
We hold that the findings of fact of the Tax Court are not clearly erroneous but to the contrary are supported by substantial evidence.
The decision of the Tax Court is affirmed for the reasons set forth in the reported opinion of that Court.

Question: Did the court rule for the defendant on grounds other than procedural grounds? For example, right to speedy trial, double jeopardy, confrontation, retroactivity, self defense. This includes the question of whether the defendant waived the right to raise some claim.
A. No
B. Yes
C. Yes, but error was harmless
D. Mixed answer
E. Issue not discussed
Answer:

Answer: E