Task: songer_r_bus

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 respondents in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives". If the total number cannot be determined (e.g., if the respondent is listed as "Smith, et. al." and the opinion does not specify who is included in the "et.al."), then answer 99.

PER CURIAM.
The controversy here involves the tax consequences of distributions made to the shareholder-creditors of a closed corporation, upon its dissolution and liquidation. The shareholders were creditors in varying amounts for salaries and commissions owing to them by the corporation.
In the liquidation, the corporation undertook to distribute assets to its shareholders for their capital interests prior to the satisfaction of their claims as creditors. The corporation then handled the shareholders’ claims as creditors by selling its mill and related equipment and certain inventories in exchange for long-term, instalment, negotiable, interest bearing promissory notes of the purchasers secured by a mortgage on the property sold by the corporation to them. The corporation transferred the notes and mortgage to a bank with authority to collect the payments on the notes and make distribution to the shareholder-creditors. The purchasers assumed the indebtedness owing to the shareholder-creditors, but agreed to pay it only out of the instalments due on the notes. The shareholder-creditors released the corporation from said indebtedness and agreed to look to the notes secured by the mortgage.
The real dispute, between the parties, relates to the manner in which the notes should be treated for tax purposes. Taxpayers claim that the notes should not be considered as a distribution in cash and that they should be taxed only on the actual instalments paid on the notes as and when received by them from the bank. Taxpayers insist that the notes were never delivered to them and that they have neither title to or possession of the notes.
The Commissioner on the other hand maintains that the notes should be taxed at their full face value in 1952 at the time when they were transferred to the bank.
The Tax Court determined that the transfer of the notes to the bank was in reality for the benefit of the taxpayers and that the bank in collecting the in-stalment payments and distributing them to taxpayers was acting as their agent. The Tax Court further held that the notes should be taxed at their full face value at the time of the assignment to the bank since there was no proof that their fair value was any less, citing Loyer v. Commissioner, 6 Cir., 1952, 199 F.2d 452. The Tax Court further held that the value of the notes represented ordinary income to the taxpayers to the extent of the corporate indebtedness owing to them, and that any sums received in excess thereof were taxable as capital gains to the extent that they exceeded the basis for their shares of stock.
We think there was substantial evidence to support the findings of fact and conclusions of the Tax Court. They are binding on this Court unless clearly erroneous. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Spermacet Whaling & Shipping Co., 6 Cir., 281 F.2d 646.
The decisions of the Tax Court may be justified on another ground. Where the note of a third person is accepted by a creditor, it ordinarily operates as a payment and discharge of the indebtedness. Southworth v. Thompson, 1872, 57 Tenn. 10, 17; Union Bank of Tennessee v. Smiser, 1853, 33 Tenn. 501. Our case is stronger because the shareholder-creditors here actually released the corporation and agreed to look solely to the notes for the payment of their indebtedness. There was a substitution of a new debtor in the place of an old one and this constituted a novation. Russell v. Centers, 153 Ky. 469, 473, 155 S. W. 1149; Crabb et al. v. Cole, 19 Tenn. App. 201, 84 S.W.2d 597.
The decisions of the Tax Court are affirmed.

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

Answer: 0