opinion: PER CURIAM.
  Petitioner Fischer Industries, Inc. appeals a judgment of tax deficiency and additions to tax for the years 1975-80, totaling over $1 million, entered against it by the Honorable John Williams, Jr. of the United States Tax Court on November 24, 1986.
  Fischer, an Ohio corporation, owned four subsidiaries during the relevant time period. Of these, three had made a practice of computing their annual tax returns by using a Last-in, First-out (LIFO) inventory system. However, Mayfran, Inc., the fourth subsidiary, used a First-in, First-out (FIFO) system prior to 1975. In 1975, Fischer decided that all of its subsidiaries, whose taxes were filed in a consolidated tax return, should use the same inventory method, LIFO. Thus, Mayfran was converted from a FIFO to a LIFO system.
  A taxpayer is permitted under 26 U.S.C. § 472 to change this inventory accounting system to LIFO if he complies with the appropriate regulations. According to 26 C.F.R. 1.472-3(a):
  The LIFO inventory method may be adopted and used only if the taxpayer files with his income tax return for the taxable year as of the close of which the method is first to be used a statement of his election to use such inventory method. The statement shall be made on Form 970 pursuant to the instructions printed with respect thereto and to the requirements of this section, or in such other manner as may be acceptable to the Commissioner.
  Id.
  Fischer did not file a Form 970 until April 16, 1986, during the trial of this case. Further, on its 1975 tax return, Fischer failed to answer a question which asked whether there was any substantial change in its method of inventory calculation. However, Fischer claimed that it substantially complied with the required procedure. Fischer stated that it correctly calculated its income tax for the period of 1975-1980, using the LIFO method. Taxpayer further asserted that it had furnished all requested records to the Internal Revenue Service auditors who, in 1979, investigated its 1975 tax return, including a 1975 financial statement that noted Mayfran’s change from FIFO to LIFO. Finally, Fischer claimed that its 1986 filing of Form 970 perfected its LIFO election.
  The Tax Court judge found that Fischer had not substantially complied with the Commissioner’s regulations. He concluded that there was no way for the Commissioner to determine from Fischer’s 1975 tax return that a LIFO election had been made. Thus, he found that no valid LIFO election was made and accordingly entered his decision finding tax deficiencies and additions to tax.
  On appeal, Fischer contends that the Tax Court erred by finding that Fischer did not make a binding choice to use LIFO for all subsidiaries beginning in 1975 and further erred by failing to realize that the LIFO decision was perfected by later acts.
  Upon a careful consideration of the record and briefs of the parties in this appeal, we conclude that no valid LIFO election was made for the tax years in question. We are reinforced in our view that the Tax Court’s conclusions are correct by our independent examination of the tax returns in question. That review convinces us that there is nothing in the returns themselves that would have given the Commissioner adequate notice that a change from FIFO to LIFO had taken place. Thus, there was no substantial equivalent of Form 970, whose regulatory function is to assure that a taxpayer adopting LIFO provides “a statement of his election to use such inventory method.” 26 C.F.R. 1.472-3.
  Accordingly, for the reasons stated by the Honorable John Williams, Jr. in his opinion filed in the Tax Court, 87 T.C. 116 (1986), the judgment of the Tax Court is AFFIRMED.
instruction: 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 any civil law cases including civil government, civil private, and diversity cases. The issue is: "Did the court's ruling on an issue arising out of an alternative dispute resolution process (ADR, settlement conference, role of mediator or arbitrator, etc.) favor the appellant?" 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".