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 "natural persons". 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:
Diana T. VORSHECK; John P. Vorsheck, Petitioners-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 90-70266.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 9, 1991.
Decided May 16, 1991.
Diana Yorsheck and John P. Yorsheck, pro se.
Shirley D. Peterson, Tax Div., U.S. Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent-appellee.
Before BROWNING, GOODWIN and POOLE, Circuit Judges.
The panel finds this case appropriate for submission without oral argument pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4 and Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).
PER CURIAM:
Diana Todaro Vorsheck and John P. Vor-sheck appeal pro se the tax court’s decision upholding the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s (“Commissioner”) determination of a tax deficiency of $10,910 for the 1982 tax year. The tax court upheld the Commissioner’s disallowance of a deduction for losses incurred through their investment in Western Reserve Oil & Gas Co., Ltd. (“WROG”), a limited partnership, because WROG did not have a profit motive. In addition, the tax court upheld the 10% penalty for substantial understatement of income tax pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6661. The Vorshecks contend that they invested in WROG with an intent to make a profit, and that they should not be liable for the penalty under section 6661 because they acted reasonably in their investment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7482, and affirm in part, reverse in part.
The tax court’s rulings of law are reviewable de novo. Vukasovich, Inc. v. Commissioner, 790 F.2d 1409, 1413 (9th Cir.1986). The issue of whether the Vorshecks invested in WROG with the requisite profit motive is a finding of fact reviewable for clear error. Baxter v. Commissioner, 816 F.2d 493, 495-96 (9th Cir. 1987).
I
Deficiency Determination
Section 162 of the Internal Revenue Code (“Code”), 26 U.S.C. § 162, allows deductions for all ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred in carrying on any trade or business. Section 167 of the Code allows a depreciation deduction for property used in trade or business. 26 U.S.C. § 167. Before a deduction is allowed under these sections, “it must be shown that the activity was entered into with the dominant hope and intent of realizing a profit.” Brannen v. Commissioner, 722 F.2d 695, 704 (9th Cir.1984). The petitioner has the burden of showing she entered into the transaction with a profit motive. Baxter, 816 F.2d at 495. When the profit motive of a limited partnership is at issue, the tax court makes its determination of profit at the partnership level. Polakof v. Commissioner, 820 F.2d 321, 323 (9th Cir.1987).
In Ferrell v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 1154 (1988), the tax court found that WROG did not have a profit motive, did not engage in a trade or business, and was carried on to enrich its organizers and offer investors a tax shelter. Id. at 1198-99. The law in the Ninth Circuit is well settled that profit motive is determined at the partnership level. See Polakof 820 F.2d at 323. Although the Vorshecks may have invested in WROG with the intent of realizing a profit, they are bound by the motive of the partnership, as determined in Ferrell. Thus, the tax court correctly decided that the Vorshecks failed to distinguish their case from Ferrell. Accordingly, we affirm the tax court’s decision upholding the Commissioner’s determination of a $10,-910 deficiency in the Vorshecks’s taxes for the 1982 tax year.
II
Section 6661 Penalty
The Vorshecks argue that even if they are liable for the deficiency, they acted reasonably and in good faith and therefore should not be liable for a penalty under 26 U.S.C. § 6661. Section 6661 provides that if there is a substantial understatement of income taxes, a penalty of 10 percent of the amount of the understatement shall be added to the tax. 26 U.S.C. § 6661(a). An understatement is substantial if it exceeds $5,000 or 10 percent of the income tax for the taxable year. 26 U.S.C. § 6661(b)(1)(A). Section 6661(c) provides that the Secretary may waive the penalty “on a showing by the taxpayer that there was reasonable cause for the understatement ... and that the taxpayer acted in good faith.”
According to the Treasury Regulations promulgated under this statute:
Reliance on an information return or on the advice of a professional (such as an appraiser, an attorney, or an accountant) would not necessarily constitute a showing of reasonable cause and good faith_ Reliance on an information return, professional advice, or other facts, however, would constitute a showing of reasonable cause and good faith if, under all the circumstances, such reliance was reasonable and the taxpayer acted in good faith.
Treas. Reg. § 1.6661-6(b). Thus, if it was reasonable for the taxpayer to rely upon the advice of an accountant under the circumstances, and the taxpayer did so in good faith, then the Commissioner may waive the penalty. See also Heasley v. Commissioner, 902 F.2d 380, 383 (5th Cir. 1990) (couple with no advanced business experience or sophisticated business knowledge who invested in tax shelter on the advice of their financial advisor were not liable for penalty under section 6661 because, “[g]iven [their] inexperience and limited knowledge about investing, and their level of education, their misunderstanding is reasonable” and the penalty should be waived).
Here, the tax court found that, although the fact that WROG was a tax shelter would have been apparent to an “experienced businessman,” the Vorshecks were not sophisticated business persons. “[T]hey relied upon the advice of their trusted tax adviser who assured them that they would obtain certain deductions.”
On the basis of its evaluation of the motives and experience of the Vorshecks, the tax court denied the penalties under sections 6653 and 6659. The tax court, however, found that the Vorshecks were liable for the penalty under section 6661. We do not agree. If the Vorshecks were acting as “an ordinary prudent person in the circumstances,” then their reliance upon the investment advice of their accountant was “reasonable” and “in good faith under all the circumstances.” See Treas.Reg. § 1 — 6661.6(b); Heasley, 902 F.2d at 385. Thus, the Vorshecks meet the standard for waiver of the penalty under section 6661. Accordingly, we reverse the tax court’s decision upholding the Commissioner’s assessment of a 10% penalty under section 6661.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART.
. The tax court found that because the Vor-shecks were not negligent, they were not liable for penalties or additions to tax under section 6653 or section 6659.
. The tax court found:
Petitioners in this case did not have that kind of business experience. They knew nothing about the tax laws. They relied upon their advisor. They knew nothing about the circumstances in which they would be expected to obtain special advice. In my judgment, they acted as an ordinary prudent person in the circumstances.

Question: What is the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "natural persons"? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 2