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 conclude that it should defer to agency discretion? For example, if the action was committed to agency discretion. 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".

Opinion:
PORTLAND COPPER & TANK WORKS, INC., Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
No. 6510.
United States Court of Appeals First Circuit,
Heard Sept. 14, 1965.
Decided Oct. 14, 1965.
John M. Doukas, Washington, D. C., with whom Maloney, Williams, Baer & Doukas, Boston, Mass., was on brief, for petitioner.
Loring W. Post, Atty., Dept, of Justice, with whom John B. Jones, Jr., Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., and Lee A. Jackson and Harry Baum, Attys., Dept, of Justice, were on brief, for respondent.
Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge, J. WARREN MADDEN, Senior Judge, Court of Claims and JULIAN, District Judge.
Sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM.
Essentially this case involves the single question whether an accrual taxpayer which has received payments under subcontracts subject to renegotiation under goverment procurement statutes may set up as a reserve, and accordingly deduct from gross income, amounts which by as-sertedly and, we will assume, concededly, proper accounting methods it appeared during the taxable year would later have to be repaid. The Tax Court rejected taxpayer’s contention. 43 T.C. 182. We have little to add to its opinion. It does not help taxpayer for the court to find that these reserves were minimum amounts. It is the existence of any reserve, not the amount, which is in controversy. Taxpayer’s contracts with the prime contractor gave it a right to receive full payment, and no negotiations resulting in a readjustment of the contracts in question took place during the taxable year. The- fact that as to some of the contracts taxpayer made a specific offer in settlement of its obligation to renegotiate established nothing. Since the offers had not been accepted, they could be withdrawn. We agree with the Tax Court that there was nothing inherently improper in requiring taxpayer to wait and proceed under 26 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1482.
Affirmed.

Question: Did the court conclude that it should defer to agency discretion? For example, if the action was committed to agency discretion.

Choices:
No
Yes
Mixed answer
Issue not discussed

Answer: 1