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.

PER CURIAM.
The Tax Court held that petitioner club cannot be exempted from taxation under Section 101(9) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, 26 U.S.C. § 101 (9), as a club “organized and operated exclusively for pleasure, recreation, and other nonprofitable purposes, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder.” Petitioner club meticulously fulfils the Code requirements except that it operates a small members death benefit fund which was commenced by a transfer of $500 from its general funds and for which a fourth of dues paid is set aside. Though nonprofitable, the purpose of the fund is not for “ ‘pleasure [or] recreation’ ” or similar purpose as the language “ ‘and other nonprofitable purposes’ ” has been construed by this court. Keystone Automobile Club v. Commissioner, 3 Cir., 1950, 181 F.2d 402, 403. We are bound by that decision and therefore the decision of the Tax Court will be affirmed.
. See also Chattanooga Automobile Club 7. Commissioner, 6 Cir., 1950, 182 F.2d 551.

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

Answer: B