opinion: The J. F. STEVENHAGEN CO. et al., Appellants, v. The COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Appellee. The J. F. STEVENHAGEN CO., Appellee, v. The COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Appellant.
  Nos. 76-1265, 76-1266.
  United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
  Argued Feb. 7, 1977.
  Decided March 8, 1977.
  Samuel Goldman, Goldman, Greene & Tsarnas, Neil B. Greene, Akron, Ohio, for J. F. Stevenhagen Co., and others.
  Scott P. Crampton, Gilbert Andrews, Asst. Attys. Gen., Tax Div., U. S. Dept, of Justice, Leonard J. Henzke, Richard Farber, Meade Whitaker, Chief Counsel, I. R. S., Washington, D. C., for C, I. R.
  Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, EDWARDS, Circuit Judge, and SILER, District Judge.
  Honorable Eugene E. Siler, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern and Western District of Kentucky, sitting by designation.
  PER CURIAM.
  These are consolidated appeals from the United States Tax Court, styled as follows: The J. F. Stevenhagen Co., et al. v. Commissioner, No. 2148-72; John F. Stevenhagen and Patricia Stevenhagen v. Commissioner, No. 2149-72, and Jon-Way Developers, Inc. v. Commissioner, No. 2150-72.
  The appellate contention before our court is that certain advances made by two sole and equal shareholders in Jon-Way Developers, Inc., were loans (made directly or through their wholly-owned companies) rather than advances of capital, as determined by the Commissioner. It is also contended that certain payments made by Jon-Way were interest payments on said loans rather than constructive dividends, as determined by the Commissioner.
  On review of the opinion of the Tax Court and the records and briefs in this appeal, this court concludes that the Tax Court properly applied the law of this Circuit to the facts in this case. See Austin Village, Inc. v. United States, 432 F.2d 741, 745 (6th Cir. 1970); Berthold v. Commissioner, 404 F.2d 119, 122 (6th Cir. 1968), and that there were no facts in this record which brought these transactions within the definition of a normal arm’s length loan. The record clearly demonstrates that the Tax Court’s findings of fact are not clearly erroneous.
  The judgment of the Tax Court is affirmed for these reasons and others more fully spelled out in the opinion of the Tax Court, filed June 23, 1975.
  . The J. F. Stevenhagen Co. v. Comm’r, Tax Ct.Mem. 1975-198.
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 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".