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.

Opinion:
PARR et al. v. SCOFIELD, Collector of Internal Revenue.
No. 13160.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 7, 1950.
Muckleroy McDonnold, San Antonio, Tex,, for appellants.
Carlton Fox, Ellis N. Slack, and Lester L. Gibson, Special Assts. to Atty. Gen., Theron Lamar Caudle, Asst. Atty. Gen., Henry W. Moursund, U. S. Atty. San Antonio, Tex., for appellee.
Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and HOLMES and RUSSELL, Circuit Judges.
HOLMES, Circuit Judge.
This appeal is from a judgment denying appellants relief in an action to recover deficiency income taxes and interest paid by them for the year 1944 in the respective amounts of $93,173.34 and $94,323.98. These are the pertinent facts:
In 1936, George B. Parr obtained an oil and gas lease which he transferred to Hamill & Smith, a partnership, with the oral understanding that he was to have a one-fourth interest in the lease and equipment, and that Hamill & Smith were to operate the property, pay all expenses, and pay to him one-fourth of the net profits from the property. After production was obtained under the lease, Hamill & Smith disputed the existence of the agreement, and Parr brought suit against them in the state court. Parr assigned 45% of his interest in the property and accumulated income to his lawyers. The suit was ultimately decided in Parr’s favor, and he was adjudged to possess a one-fourth interest in the lease and equipment, and to be entitled to be reimbursed for one-fourth of the profits earned in the prior years, as well as to receive a similar portion of the profits earned in the future. As a result of the suit, Parr and his wife, who were divorced after this suit was filed, received the following sums of money from Hamill & Smith during the year 1944:
55% of 25% of net income
from the lease,............ $165,554.30
55% of 25% of interest allowed on the judgment, .......... 22,868.58
Total, .............. $188,422.8o
In 1945, Parr and his wife filed separate returns for the year 1944, in which they reported one-fourth of the net income from the 1944 operations of the lease. They did not report any income from the lease attributable to operations prior to 1944; but they filed amended returns for the years 1940 to 1943, inclusive, in which they reported their distributive share of net income from the lease. During the year 1945, they filed delinquent partnership income tax returns in the name of Hamill & Smith & Parr for the years 1936 to 1943, inclusive.
Upon examination of appellants’ 1944 income tax returns, the Commissioner found that the amount collected on the state court judgment, plus the fair market value of appellants’ interest in the lease and equipment, constituted income from litigation for the year 1944 not subject to any depletion allowance. As a result of this finding, the Commissioner assessed additional taxes and interest against George B. Parr and Thelma D. Parr in the respective amounts of $93,219.40 and $93,370.06. Appellants paid the additional assessments, and then filed claims for a refund, which were rejected. Then they filed this suit in the court below to recover the amounts alleged to be illegally assessed against them. The lower court denied recovery, holding that the taxpayers were required to report in 1944, as income, the sums recovered by them in 1944 in the state court. In so holding, the court rejected the taxpayers’ contention that, because Parr was a member of a partnership, the income should have been taxed in the years when earned, as well as their contention that they were entitled to a deduction for depletion under Section 23 (m) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 23 (m).
We think that the lower court was correct in concluding as a matter of law that the determination of the Commissioner, resulting in the deficiency assessments, was correct. Appellants base their case on the contention that Parr had an undivided one-fourth interest in the property from date of its acquisition; that Hamill & Smith received the income and made disbursements for themselves and Parr; and that such relationship established a joint venture for income tax purposes under Section 3797(a) (2) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 3797(a) (2). In Farrell v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 5 Cir., 134 F.2d 193, certiorari denied in 320 U.S. 745, this court held that the essential issue concerning the existence of an asserted joint venture was a question of fact for decision by the trial court. The court below has resolved this issue of fact against the appellants; and, since we are not convinced that it is clearly erroneous, we are not at liberty to disturb the finding of the trial court.
Even if Parr had been able to establish a partnership or joint venture, he would not be entitled to a recovery, because our decision in Farrell v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, supra, also held that income recovered by litigation was taxable in the year recovered, rather than in the prior years when earned by the alleged partnership. Parr had no recognized right to any partnership property or earnings during the time Hamill & Smith were actually contesting liis claim; and he had no distributive share of partnership earnings that could be reported for income until the termination of the litigation. The appellants are entitled to no depletion deduction, because they had no known, established, or legally recognized interest until the litigation in the state court was determined. The amount paid to Parr by Hamill & Smith representing past profits, earned by them before his interest in the property was established, was not depletable income in Parr’s hands. See Massey v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 143 F.2d 429, 431.
During the time Hamill & Smith were contesting the existence of Parr’s interest in the property, they were required to report the entire income from the property as their taxable income, and were entitled to depletion deductions thereon. The government dealt with them, and allowed such deductions. The judgment appealed from is affirmed.
Affirmed.
RUSSELL, Circuit Judge.
I concur in the judgment of affirmance.

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.

Choices:

Answer: 0