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 "natural person (excludes persons named in their official capacity or who appear because of a role in a private organization)". Your task is to determine which of these categories best describes the income of the litigant. Consider the following categories: "not ascertained", "poor + wards of state" (e.g., patients at state mental hospital; not prisoner unless specific indication that poor), "presumed poor" (e.g., migrant farm worker), "presumed wealthy" (e.g., high status job - like medical doctors, executives of corporations that are national in scope, professional athletes in the NBA or NFL; upper 1/5 of income bracket), "clear indication of wealth in opinion", "other - above poverty line but not clearly wealthy" (e.g., public school teachers, federal government employees)." Note that "poor" means below the federal poverty line; e.g., welfare or food stamp recipients. There must be some specific indication in the opinion that you can point to before anyone is classified anything other than "not ascertained". Prisoners filing "pro se" were classified as poor, but litigants in civil cases who proceed pro se were not presumed to be poor. Wealth obtained from the crime at issue in a criminal case was not counted when determining the wealth of the criminal defendant (e.g., drug dealers).

Opinion:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert L. MOSEL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 83-3455.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Argued April 17, 1984.
Decided July 6, 1984.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Sept. 14, 1984.
Joseph Rocco (argued), Donald W. MacPherson, Phoenix, Ariz., for defendant-appellant.
Robyn R. Jones, John R. Fisher (argued), Columbus, Ohio, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before ENGEL and MERRITT, Circuit Judges, and HILLMAN, District Judge.
The Honorable Douglas W. Hillman, Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM.
Robert Mosel appeals from his conviction on two counts of willfully supplying false and fraudulent statements on withholding certificates in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7205 (1976) and on two counts of willfully failing to file an income tax return in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203 (1976).
Mosel, who had been a taxpaying citizen and an employee of the Ohio Bell Telephone Company, claimed that some time in late 1979 he had been exposed to the teaching of one Irwin Schiff. Mr. Schiff believed that compliance with tax laws was voluntary and not mandatory, and that a taxpayer’s rights under the Fifth Amendment were violated by the requirement that returns be filed by taxpayers. He also claimed that any duty to prepare returns and to assess returns rested with the Treasury and not with the individual taxpayer. Inspired by Mr. Schiff, Mosel submitted to the government a Form 1040 tax return for the year 1980 on which he indicated that he had zero income from wages, and interest, that he owed no income taxes, and that he was entitled to a refund on all of the taxes which had been withheld by his employer for that year.
In 1980 Mosel also submitted a W-4 to his employer on which he indicated that he was exempt from withholding because he had no tax liability the year before and expected none that year. In 1981 he submitted a similar W-4 form and he did not file an income tax return.
The government determined that Mosel had a taxable income in 1980 of $33,940.75 in wages and $518.33 in interest. In 1981 Mosel’s taxable income was determined to have been $35,007.11 in wages and $1,780.33 in interest and dividends. Mosel was sentenced to one year in prison for each of the four counts of which he was convicted, each sentence to be served consecutively.
Mosel now claims that he was improperly convicted for failing to file a tax return for the year 1980 because he did submit a return indicating that he owed no taxes. Mosel also claims that the lower court erred by not instructing the jury that Mosel’s belief in the unconstitutionality of the tax laws could constitute a misunderstanding of law depriving him of the requisite willful intent. Lastly, Mosel challenges the tax laws on a number of constitutional grounds.
Mosel's principal argument concerns the submission of the Form 1040 for the year 1980. He claims that because he did in fact file an income tax return for that year and because he filled in the blanks of that form with zeroes as above indicated, he cannot, as a matter of law, be found guilty of failing to file a return in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203. Mosel asserts that under United States v. Long, 618 F.2d 74 (9th Cir.1980), his 1980 return was a valid return, even if erroneous, because a tax could be computed from the information contained on the form. He therefore argues that, although the information might be false and its submission a crime under 26 U.S.C. § 7206, a felony, it cannot be a crime under section 7203, a misdemeanor.
Upon consideration, we reject the position of the Ninth Circuit and hold instead that the Form 1040 submitted was properly construed as no return because of its failure to include any information upon which tax could be calculated. Accordingly, we align ourselves with those circuits which have specifically considered and rejected the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Long. United States v. Rickman, 638 F.2d 182 (10th Cir.1980); United States v. Moore, 627 F.2d 830 (7th Cir.1980) cert. denied, 450 U.S. 916, 101 S.Ct. 1360, 67 L.Ed.2d 342 (1981); see also United States v. Smith, 618 F.2d 280 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 868, 101 S.Ct. 203, 66 L.Ed.2d 87 (1980); United States v. Grabinski, 558 F.Supp. 1324 (D.Minn.1983). We particularly agree with the Seventh Circuit’s observation in United States v. Moore that
... [I]t is not enough for a form to contain some income information; there must also be an honest and reasonable intent to supply the information required by the tax code____ In our self-reporting tax system the government should not be forced to accept as a return a document which plainly is not intended to give the required information.
627 F.2d at 835.
Although Mosel’s argument has some surface appeal in that the symbol zero has mathematical meaning, we conclude that no reasonable person employing such a symbol in these circumstances could understand that he had submitted the information which is required in a tax return. Mosel’s 1980 Form 1040 might reasonably be considered a protest, but under no circumstances can it be rationally construed as a return.
The other issues raised are without merit, have already been resolved adverse to the taxpayer by this and other circuits, and need not be further addressed here.
Affirmed.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "natural person (excludes persons named in their official capacity or who appear because of a role in a private organization)". Which of these categories best describes the income of the litigant?

Choices:
not ascertained
poor + wards of state
presumed poor
presumed wealthy
clear indication of wealth in opinion
other - above poverty line but not clearly wealthy

Answer: 0