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 underlying question in this tax case is whether whisky warehouse certificates owned by the Rosenbloom Finance Corporation, the taxpayer, were acquired by gift from its majority shareholder, Sol Rosenbloom. If acquired by gift, their value for ascertaining profit was their cost to the donor, $51,538.26. If not so acquired, their cost to the taxpayer was $269,494.97. The Board of Tax Appeals held the transaction was not a gift, and the Commissioner took this appeal. There is no dispute as to facts, and the question is wholly one of law. The facts, a full discussion thereof, and citations of authorities bearing on the case are set forth at full length in the findings and opinion of the Tax Board, and by reference thereto we avoid useless restatement.
The taxpayer paid Rosenbloom no money, stock, or other consideration therefor. It was a voluntary transfer of property without consideration or compensation therefor, and the form it took involved no ownership by any third party, and, whatever form or semblance it took, in substance and reality it was a transfer with the aim of avoiding tax. In our judgment it was a gift. The decree of the Tax Board will therefore be set aside and the record remanded for due procedure in accord herewith.

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

Answer: B