Task: songer_mootness

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 conclude that an issue was moot?" 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".

SPARKS, Circuit Judge.
The statutes and regulations of the Treasury Department are the same as those involved in Acacia Park Cemetery Association v. Commissioner, 67 F. (2d) 700, decided by this court at this term. Petitioner’s plan of organization and the conduct of its business were the same as in that case. The questions presented there were also presented in the instant ease, and the evidence introduced and the findings and the decision of the Board with respect to those questions are practically identical except as to names, dates, and amounts.
It is the contention of petitioner (1) that the sum of $119,064, or $66 per lot, representing liability for perpetual care, was properly included by petitioner in determining the cost to it of all the lots in the cemetery; or (2) that ton per cent of the sales price received from the lot purchasers was received by petitioner in trust for the purpose of being placed in the perpetual care fund, and therefore should have been deducted from petitioner’s income. Under the authority of Acacia Park Cemetery Association v. Commissioner, supra, we hold that the Board’s ruling in rejecting petitioner’s first and second contentions was correct.
Petitioner .also raises a third question, and one which was not involved in the Acacia Park Case, namely, whether or not it may he allowed deductions for certain salary items entered as accrued on its books in the taxable year 1924, hut never in fact paid. With reference to this question the Board found the following facts: In 1925 litigation arose among the stockholders, and two of the officers, Lightfoot and Hewitt, were ousted from the management of the petitioner, and Lea-body and his faction came into control. In October, 1925, auditors employed by Lea-body caused to he reversed the credits of salaries of $11,500 each to Lightfoot and Hewitt, which had been entered on the hooks at December 31, 1924. Lightfoot and Hewitt were restored to office in 1926, but the ‘salaries here involved were not drawn then nor at any time because the company was not in a position to pay such salaries. Neither Lightfoot nor Hewitt included in his tax returns for any year the amount of $11,500' each which had been credited to them on the hooks of the petitioner as salaries for 1924. Petitioner’s return for 1924 contains the statement that it was filed on the basis of cash receipts. In fact, however, it was filed on the installment basis, and officers’ salaries were deducted in the amount of $38,000. In determining the deficiencies for 1924, the respondent disallowed the $23,000 involved in the two items for Lightfoot and Hewitt. This action the Board confirmed. We are convinced that there is no merit in petitioner’s claim for deduction for these salary items, and that the Board therefore properly rejected it. The findings certainly do not warrant a different ruling, nor does the evidence warrant a different finding. Petitioner contends that it was stipulated that these salaries for 1924 were accrued on its books, which it says is, in effect, a stipulation that such accruals were properly set up and constitute liabilities. Petitioner’s attention was called to the fact that the record contains no such stipulation. To this suggestion it made no reply, nor have we been able to find such stipulation.
The decisions of the Board are affirmed.

Question: Did the court conclude that an issue was moot?
A. No
B. Yes
C. Mixed answer
D. Issue not discussed
Answer:

Answer: D