Task: songer_alj

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. You will be asked a question pertaining to issues that may appear in civil law issues involving government actors. The issue is: "Did the court support the decision of an administrative law judge? 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".

EVANS, Circuit Judge.
Petitioner, the taxpayer, raises this question : Does the refund of a state income tax theretofore unconstitutionally exacted, the annual amount of which was deducted by the taxpayer in his Federal income tax return, constitute income for Federal tax purposes in the year in which it is refunded ?
The facts: Petitioner, pursuant to the Wisconsin state income tax law,’ paid $81,-346.50 income taxes upon his wife’s income during the years 1926 to 1931. He deducted these payments in his Federal tax returns. In 1931, the United States Supreme Court held the state tax enactment to be unconstitutional as to the particular provision involved (Hoeper v. Tax Comm., 284 U.S. 206, 52 S.Ct. 120, 76 L.Ed. 248), and the State of Wisconsin in 1932 refunded to Mr. Nash $81,346.50 (the sum in dispute) and $20,420.76, interest. The. interest item is conceded by petitioner to be taxable and is therefore not before us. Further assessment of Federal taxes for the years 1926 to 1931, to correct the assessments for those years, is barred by the statute of limitations.
Petitioner paid his ificome taxes for the .year 1932 with this item of $81,346.50 included in his income; hence the form of this proceeding is a claim for refund, being in excess of a deficiency assessed and not here in issue. The Board included the $81,346.50 in petitioner’s 1932 income. Petitioner made his return on the cash receipts and disbursement basis.
Petitioner argues that the refund does not constitute income as defined in section 22 (a), Revenue Act of 1932 (26 U.S.C.A. § 22 and note), or the Regulations.
It is the Commissioner’s contention that a refund resulting from the return of taxes previously paid under a mistaken view of the validity of a state tax is taxable income. Reliance for this view is placed on Burnet v. Sanford & Brooks Co., 282 U.S. 359, 51 S.Ct. 150, 75 L.Ed. 383; Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Commissioner (C.C.A.) 47 F.(2d) 990; Houbigant, Inc. v. Commissioner, 31 B.T.A. 954, affirmed (C.C.A.) 80 F.(2d) 1012.
We accept the views expressed in these opinions.
The order of the Board of Tax Appeals is affirmed.
Section 22 (a), Revenue Act of 1S132: “(a) General definition. ‘Gross income’ includes gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service, of whatever kind and in whatever form paid, or from professions, vocations, trades, businesses, commerce, or sales, or dealings in property, whether real or personal, growing out of the ownership or use of or interest in such property; also from interest, rent, dividends, securities, or the transaction of any business carried on for gain or profit, or gains or profits and income derived from any source whatever.”
Article 41 (a), Regulations 77; “(a) Income (in the broad sense), meaning all wealth which flows in to the taxpayer other than as a mere return of capital. It includes the forms of income specifically described as gains and profits, including gains derived from the sale or other disposition of capital assets. * * * ”
Article 51, Regulations 77: “Gross income includes, in general, compensation for personal and professional services, business income, profits from sales of and dealings in property, interest, rent, dividends, and gains, profits, and income derived from any source whatever. * * * In general, income is the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets. * * *"

Question: Did the court support the decision of an administrative law judge?
A. No
B. Yes
C. Mixed answer
D. Issue not discussed
Answer:

Answer: D