Task: songer_respond1_1_4

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
When coding the detailed nature of participants, use your personal knowledge about the participants, if you are completely confident of the accuracy of your knowledge, even if the specific information is not in the opinion. For example, if "IBM" is listed as the appellant it could be classified as "clearly national or international in scope" even if the opinion did not indicate the scope of the business. 

Your task concerns the first listed respondent. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)", specifically "unclear". Your task is to determine what subcategory of business best describes this litigant.

PER CURIAM:
In directing a verdict for the taxpayers, the district court recognized that it was deciding directly contrary to the opinion and decision of the Sixth Circuit in Key Homes, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 6 Cir. 1959, 271 F.2d 280. George Wood owned 50% of the stock of Bama Homes. The district court reasoned that the present controversy is not controlled by Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Hansen, 1959, 360 U.S. 446, 79 S.Ct. 1270, 3 L.Ed.2d 1360, because Bama Homes had no contractual guaranty obligation to the financial institution. We do not agree.
As we read the contract (record pp. 122-124), Bama Homes agreed to make a “deposit” of “additional security” with the financial institution in consideration of the granting of a mortgage loan to the purchaser-mortgagor. We agree with the decision of the Sixth Circuit in Key Homes, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, supra.
The judgment of the district court is therefore
Reversed.

Question: This question concerns the first listed respondent. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)", specifically "unclear". What subcategory of business best describes this litigant?
A. auto industry
B. chemical industry
C. drug industry
D. food industry
E. oil & gas industry
F. clothing & textile industry
G. electronic industry
H. alcohol and tobacco industry
I. other
J. unclear
Answer:

Answer: J