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:
Michael Magnone and Joseph V. and Rose Magnone appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Michael B. Mukasey, Judge, dismissing their suits for abatement of interest on tax deficiency assessments. We affirm for the reasons given by Judge Mukasey in his thorough opinion reported at 733 F.Supp. 613. We write only to clarify the circuit law.
In 1987 the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) assessed plaintiffs for tax deficiencies in the tax years 1974-1976. In 1988 plaintiffs paid all taxes due for those years as well as the interest accrued in 1979. They did not pay the interest accrued for the other years. Relying on 26 U.S.C. § 6601(c), they filed for an abatement of the interest charges claiming IRS delay. When the IRS failed to respond, plaintiffs commenced these suits seeking refund of the interest. Judge Mukasey held that jurisdiction was lacking because plaintiffs did not satisfy either the full-payment rule or the prior-claim rule; and that no claim had been stated because under the applicable statute the suits were not authorized for the particular tax years at issue.
First, the full payment rule requires as a prerequisite for federal court jurisdiction over a tax refund suit, that the taxpayer make full payment of the assessment, including penalties and interest. Flora v. United States, 357 U.S. 63, 78 S.Ct. 1079, 2 L.Ed.2d 1165 (1958), aff'd on rehearing, 362 U.S. 145, 80 S.Ct. 630, 4 L.Ed.2d 623 (1960). Since plaintiffs had paid accrued interest only for the year 1979, they did not make the required full payment of the interest accrued from the delinquencies up to the time of payment.
Nevertheless, plaintiffs contend they complied with the single-year rule which provides that the jurisdictional prerequisite is satisfied when a taxpayer makes “full payment of a tax liability for any given year.” Green v. United States, 618 F.2d 122, 220 Ct.Cl. 712, 713 (1979). We agree with Judge Mukasey’s interpretation of the rule that a payment of interest “constitute^] full payment only if it includes all interest relating to the year for which the deficiency has been assessed, but not if it is simply one year’s worth of interest on a past deficiency”, as it was here. Thus, under either rule plaintiffs have not met the jurisdictional requirement.
Second, under the prior-claim rule, a taxpayer must bring the claim for refund to the IRS as a prerequisite to jurisdiction for the suit in federal court. 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a). Consequently, in pursuing such a suit, a taxpayer may not raise different grounds than those brought to the IRS. Union Pacific RR Co. v. United States, 389 F.2d 437, 442 (Ct.Cl.1968).
In their IRS claim, plaintiffs relied on 26 U.S.C. § 6601(c) and sought suspension of all interest accrued on each of the three deficiency assessments. Their federal court complaint relied on 26 U.S.C. § 6404(e) and sought abatement only of that interest which had accrued on those deficiencies in the year 1979. As Judge Mukasey described in detail, these claims are entirely different and therefore cannot satisfy the jurisdictional requirement of the prior-claim rule.
Finally, section 6404(e), on which plaintiffs now rely, applies only to “interest accruing with respect to deficiencies or payments for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1978.” Pub.L. No. 99-514, § 1563(b)(1), 100 Stat. 2085, 2762 (1986). We agree with Judge Mukasey’s interpretation that § 6404(e) applies “only to interest accruing on deficiencies for tax years after 1978.” He correctly held that “[h]ere, the challenged interest accrued with respect to deficiencies and payments for the years 1974, 1975 and 1976, which are clearly earlier than December 31, 1978. Consequently, plaintiffs cannot sue for those years”.
Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is affirmed in all respects.

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

Answer: B