Task: songer_direct1

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Your task is to determine the ideological directionality of the court of appeals decision, coded as "liberal" or "conservative". Consider liberal to be for government tax claim; for person claiming patent or copyright infringement; for the plaintiff alleging the injury; for economic underdog if one party is clearly an underdog in comparison to the other, neither party is clearly an economic underdog; in cases pitting an individual against a business, the individual is presumed to be the economic underdog unless there is a clear indication in the opinion to the contrary; for debtor or bankrupt; for government or private party raising claim of violation of antitrust laws, or party opposing merger; for the economic underdog in private conflict over securities; for individual claiming a benefit from government; for government in disputes over government contracts and government seizure of property; for government regulation in government regulation of business; for greater protection of the environment or greater consumer protection (even if anti-government); for the injured party in admiralty - personal injury; for economic underdog in admiralty and miscellaneous economic cases. Consider the directionality to be "mixed" if the directionality of the decision was intermediate to the extremes defined above or if the decision was mixed (e.g., the conviction of defendant in a criminal trial was affirmed on one count but reversed on a second count or if the conviction was afirmed but the sentence was reduced). Consider "not ascertained" if the directionality could not be determined or if the outcome could not be classified according to any conventional outcome standards.

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.
The all-decisive question in this tax case is whether the profit of the taxpayer in the sale of certain stocks was realized in 1923 or 1924. This question and the pertinent facts bearing thereon were thus summarized by the Board of Tax Appeals: “The respondent maintains that the sale of capital stock by the decedent to Waibridge & Company was made in 1924, that the initial payment was $262,000 or approximately one-third of the purchase price and that the contract of November 16, 1923 (known as Exhibit A) was merely an agreement to sell the stock contingent upon certain events which occurred in 1924 and which served as a basis for completing the sale and transferring the title to the purchaser- or its de-signee.” Its conclusion was that: “The sale on April 10, 1924 was a closed transaction for cash and its equivalent. The profit' accruing from it was realized on that date and should be taxed in the year 1924.”
After a full argument by counsel, after a careful study by the members of this court individually and a discussion thereof collectively, and a due consideration of all the questions raised in the briefs and on oral argument in this court, we are satisfied the Board committed no error in procedure or conclusion and its order should be affirmed. The parties largely evidenced their acts by written documents, and the inference drawn therefrom by the Tax Board as to the year the profit was made was warranted. No principle of law is here involved and the case turns on its own individual documents; and as the acts of the parties are set forth in great detail in the record of the ■ Tax Board and reported in the publications of that body, by reference thereto we avoid a needless restatement thereof in the records and publications of this court.
Such being the situation, we limit ourselves to stating that finding no error on the part of the Tax Board, its order is affirmed.

Question: What is the ideological directionality of the court of appeals decision?
A. conservative
B. liberal
C. mixed
D. not ascertained
Answer:

Answer: B