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 appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)". Your task is to classify the scope of this business into one of the following categories: "local" (individual or family owned business, scope limited to single community; generally proprietors, who are not incorporated); "neither local nor national" (e.g., an electrical power company whose operations cover one-third of the state); "national or multi-national" (assume that insurance companies and railroads are national in scope); and "not ascertained".

Opinion:
TEXAS TRADE SCHOOL, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
No. 17740.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
Nov. 25, 1959.
Allen Melton, Dallas, Tex., for petitioner.
Rita E. Hauser, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Charles K. Rice, Asst. Atty. Gen., Howard A. Heffron, Act. Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, Atty., Marvin W. Weinstein, Atty., Arch M. Cantrall, Chief Counsel, Charles P. Dugan, Special Atty., Washington, D. C., Internal Revenue Service, for respondent.
Before HUTCHESON, JONES and WISDOM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The Commissioner of Internal Revenue determined that Texas Trade School, petitioner, was not entitled to exemption from taxation under Section 101(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, 26 U.S.C.A. § 101(6). This section exempts from taxation corporations organized and operated exclusively for educational purposes, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any prior shareholder or individual. The basis for this determination was that five individuals, four of whom were members of the executive committee of the School and all of whom were members of the Board of Directors shared in petitioner’s net earnings as a result of the payment to them of excessive and unreasonable rent for real estate leased to the petitioner and as the result of the construction by petitioner of buildings which became part of their real estate. The Tax Court carefully reviewed the facts and the law and upheld the determination of the Commissioner. 30 T.C. 642. We find that the record fully supports the holding of the Tax Court and we adopt the opinion of the Tax Court as the opinion of this Court.
The judgment of the Tax Court is
Affirmed.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)". What is the scope of this business?

Choices:
local
neither local nor national
national or multi-national
not ascertained

Answer: 1