Task: songer_appbus

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.
In some cases there is some confusion over who should be listed as the appellant and who as the respondent. This confusion is primarily the result of the presence of multiple docket numbers consolidated into a single appeal that is disposed of by a single opinion. Most frequently, this occurs when there are cross appeals and/or when one litigant sued (or was sued by) multiple litigants that were originally filed in district court as separate actions. The coding rule followed in such cases should be to go strictly by the designation provided in the title of the case. The first person listed in the title as the appellant should be coded as the appellant even if they subsequently appeared in a second docket number as the respondent and regardless of who was characterized as the appellant in the opinion.
To clarify the coding conventions, consider the following hypothetical case in which the US Justice Department sues a labor union to strike down a racially discriminatory seniority system and the corporation (siding with the position of its union) simultaneously sues the government to get an injunction to block enforcement of the relevant civil rights law. From a district court decision that consolidated the two suits and declared the seniority system illegal but refused to impose financial penalties on the union, the corporation appeals and the government and union file cross appeals from the decision in the suit brought by the government. Assume the case was listed in the Federal Reporter as follows:
United States of America,
Plaintiff, Appellant
v
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendant, Appellee.
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendants, Cross-appellants
v
United States of America.
Widgets, Inc. & Susan Kuersten Sheehan, President & Chairman
of the Board
Plaintiff, Appellants,
v
United States of America,
Defendant, Appellee.
This case should be coded as follows:Appellant = United States, Respondents = International Brotherhood of Widget Workers Widgets, Inc., Total number of appellants = 1, Number of appellants that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officials" = 1, Total number of respondents = 3, Number of respondents that fall into the category "private business and its executives" = 2, Number of respondents that fall into the category "groups and associations" = 1.
Note that if an individual is listed by name, but their appearance in the case is as a government official, then they should be counted as a government rather than as a private person. For example, in the case "Billy Jones & Alfredo Ruiz v Joe Smith" where Smith is a state prisoner who brought a civil rights suit against two of the wardens in the prison (Jones & Ruiz), the following values should be coded: number of appellants that fall into the category "natural persons" =0 and number that fall into the category "state governments, their agencies, and officials" =2. A similar logic should be applied to businesses and associations. Officers of a company or association whose role in the case is as a representative of their company or association should be coded as being a business or association rather than as a natural person. However, employees of a business or a government who are suing their employer should be coded as natural persons. Likewise, employees who are charged with criminal conduct for action that was contrary to the company policies should be considered natural persons.
If the title of a case listed a corporation by name and then listed the names of two individuals that the opinion indicated were top officers of the same corporation as the appellants, then the number of appellants should be coded as three and all three were coded as a business (with the identical detailed code). Similar logic should be applied when government officials or officers of an association were listed by name.
Your specific task is to determine the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives". If the total number cannot be determined (e.g., if the appellant is listed as "Smith, et. al." and the opinion does not specify who is included in the "et.al."), then answer 99.

AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judge.
The question raised by this appeal is whether the taxpayer H. Lewis Brown is liable for income taxes on a claim for compensation for legal services which was assigned by him to a corporation of which he was the sole stockholder in exchange for its stock after the services were rendered and before the amount was paid by the client.
The taxpayer was a member of the New York law firm of Burroughs & Brown which beginning about February, 1927, and continuing to October, 1929, rendered legal services to Charles T. Davis in a litigation between, the latter and one Kelsey. Burroughs died June 19, 1929, while the action for Davis was still pending. Brown, the surviving partner, rendered further services to Davis on behalf of himself and of the Estate of Burroughs until about October 15, 1929. Before any judgment was rendered upon the claim, or any settlement of the controversy was reached, Brown voluntarily withdrew as attorney in the action and subsequent proceedings were conducted by other attorneys. Because he was unable to agree with Davis upon the fee to be paid he and the executor of his deceased partner Burroughs brought an action in the New York Supreme Court to determine the amount of the fee and to obtain a decree establishing a lien upon the proceeds of the. suit of Davis against Kelsey. After protracted litigation the parties finally settled their disputes on December 6, 1933, at $41,800, one-half of which, or $20;900, was paid on that date to the executors of Burroughs, and the remaining one-half to Brown who at once endorsed over the check to Eastern Chemical Corporation, a Delaware corporation. That company was organized by Brown on August 23, 1933, to facilitate the collection of certain claims of another client for patent infringement in which the firm of-Brown & Burroughs had an interest in the way oi an arrangement for a contingent fee. At the time the company was organized Brown subscribed and paid in cash for 100 shares of stock of the par value of $10 each and on October 29, 1933, he received a further 100 shares in return for the assignment to the company of his one-half interest in the claim against Davis then being litigated in the New York court. No further stock was issued by the company and Brown, as holder of the 200 shares, was the sole owner of the corporation. The Eastern Chemical Corporation returned the entire amount of $20,900 as its income and paid an income tax thereon. The amount was never included in the personal income tax return of Brown.
After the 200 shares were issued to Brown, and after the foregoing settlement, he assigned them to his wife as a gift and the gift was reported under the gift tax law by both Brown and his wife. On September 16, 1936, the Eastern Chemical Corporation was dissolved, current liquidating dividends were declared from the assets, the amounts received therefrom by Mrs. Brown were reported by her in her several income tax returns and taxes thereon were paid accordingly. Upon examination of the income tax return of Brown for the year 1933 the Commissioner added $20,900 to his income for that year and assessed a tax deficiency of $9,338.43 against him accordingly. This deficiency assessment was affirmed by the Board of Tax Appeals, of which $9,173.50 assessed because of the omission of $20,900 from Brown’s income for the year 1933 is now in issue. We think the decision of the Board was right and should be affirmed.
It is contended on behalf of the taxpayer that the fee was fully earned prior to the assignment and that, therefore, the case does not come within the decisions of Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111, 50 S.Ct. 241, 74 L.Ed. 731, and Burnet v. Leininger, 285 U.S.136, 52 S.Ct. 345, 76 L.Ed. 665, but within our recent decision in Eubank v. Commissioner, 2 Cir., 110 F.2d 737, in which we held that fully earned commissions on renewal insurance premiums when assigned to a trustee after they were earned were not taxable against the assignor but against the trustee. We based our decision on the fact that the assignor no longer remained in control of the income. Whatever might have been the view of the Supreme Court under the earlier cases it seems reasonably clear that since their decision in Higgins v. Smith, 308 U.S. 473, 60 S.Ct. 355, 84 L.Ed. 406, that court would not regard a transfer of compensation for services to a wholly-owned corporation as a parting with control by the assignor. The intervention of such a corporation had no business purpose other than to avoid taxes. Cf. Mehrlust v. Higgins, 112 F.2d 717, decided by this court on June 17, 1940. Accordingly such an intervention is insufficient to render Lucas v. Earl, supra, inoperative, although it may be that a different rule prevails for assignment to a wholly-owned corporation of a tangible res, as certificates of stock, together with the dividend declared thereon. Cf. Matchette v. Helvering, 2 Cir., 81 F.2d 73; Horst v. Commissioner, 2 Cir., 107 F.2d 906. Because of the continued control over income derived from personal services which is normally taxable against the person earning it, we find it unnecessary to discuss the somewhat complicated arguments made by the Board, as to partnership law in support of its decision to sustain the assessment of the $20,900 against Brown.
The taxpayer largely relies on Section 112 (b) (5) of the Revenue Act of 1932, 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev. Code, § 112 (b) (5), which provides that: “No gain or loss shall be recognized if property is transferred to a corporation by one or more persons solely in exchange for stock or securities in such corporation, and immediately after the exchange such person or persons are in control of the corporation * *
We cannot regard this section as pertinent to any of the issues involved. The Commissioner and the Board did not attempt to assess the deficiency on the ground that the taxpayer realized any gain, nor was any gain realized when he received stock of the Eastern Chemical Corporation in exchange for his claim against Davis. He was assessed for the $20,900 received in 1933 and was taxed thereon because the fee was derived from his earnings and because, under the rule of Lucas v. Earl, he was liable for the tax so long as the compensation when received remained within his control.
Order affirmed.

Question: What is the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives"? Answer with a number.
Answer:

Answer: 1