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 "state government (includes territories & commonwealths)", specifically "bureaucracy providing services". Your task is to determine which specific state government agency best describes this litigant.

Opinion:
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF UTAH v. UNITED STATES.
No. 2671.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
June 21, 1943.
W. L. Skanchy, of Salt Lake City, Utah (Grover A. Giles, J. Lambert Gibson, and Grant A. Brown, all of Salt Lake City, Utah, on the brief), for appellant.
Wilma C. Martin, Atty., Department of Justice, of Washington, D. C. (Norman M. Littell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dan B. Shields, U. S. Atty., of Salt Lake City, . Utah, and Vernon L. Wilkinson, Atty., Department of Justice, of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellee.
Before BRATTON, HUXMAN and MURRAH, Circuit Judges.
BRATTON, Circuit Judge.
The United States instituted this action to acquire by condemnation certain land in Box Elder County, Utah. The county was a party defendant. Judgment was entered reciting that the United States took possession of the premises on March 2, 1942, determining that the owners were liable for the taxes only for January and February, and adjudging that on payment of one-sixth of the taxes for that year each tract should be released of all lien for such taxes. Up to the time of the entry of the judgment, the State Tax Commission of Utah was not a party to the action; but thereafter it filed in the cause a petition challenging the correctness of the judgment in respect of the proration of the taxes and praying that it be vacated and set aside. An order was entered denying the petition, and the Commission appealed.
Laying aside certain exceptions which do not have material bearing here, our jurisdiction is limited to review by appeal of final decisions. Reeves v. Beard-all, 316 U. S. 283, 62 S.Ct. 1085, 86 L.Ed. 1478; Crutcher v. Joyce, 10 Cir., 134 F.2d 809.
This appeal was expressly taken from the order denying the petition to vacate and set aside the judgment. It was not from the judgment. In ordinary circumstances such as those presented here, an appeal will not lie from an order refusing to vacate or set aside a prior judgment or decree. Brockett v. Brockett, 2 How. 238, 11 L.Ed. 251; Wylie v. Coxe, 14 How. 1, 14 L.Ed. 301; McMicken v. Perin, 18 How. 507, 15 L.Ed. 504; Willis v. Davis, 6 Cir., 184 F. 889; International Bank v. Securities Corporation of District of Columbia, 59 App.D.C. 72, 32 F.2d 968; Cuno Engineering Corp. v. Hudson Auto Supply Co., D.C., 49 F.2d 654; Smith v. Gorlo, 7 Cir., 52 F.2d 848; Glinski v. United States 7 Cir., 93 F.2d 418; Bensen v. United States, 9 Cir., 93 F.2d 749; Burns v. Ender Coal & Coke Co., 7 Cir., 104 F.2d 964.
An application to set aside a judgment on the ground of invalidity for lack of service of process on the defendant is in effect an independent action or proceeding and an order denying such an application is therefore appealable. Stevirmac Oil & Gas Co. v. Dittman, 245 U.S. 210, 38 S.Ct. 116, 62 L.Ed. 248. But this appeal was not from an order of that kind.
The appeal is dismissed.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "state government (includes territories & commonwealths)", specifically "bureaucracy providing services". Which specific state government agency best describes this litigant?

Choices:
Police
Fire
Taxation
Human Services/Welfare/Health Care
Streets and Highways
Transportation
Election processes
Education
Other Service Activity
not ascertained

Answer: 2