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:
UNITED STATES v. NATIONAL TANK & EXPORT CO.
No. 5726.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 10, 1930.
Charles L. Redding, U. S. Atty., of Savannah, Ga., and F. F. Toomey, Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, of Washington, D. C. (George Noble Jones, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Savannah, Ga., C. M. Charest, Gen. Counsel, Bureau of Internal Revenue, Wright Matthews, Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, Wm. B. Waldo, Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, all of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for the United States.
Gordon C. Carson, Alexander A. Lawrence, and Edmund H. Abrahams, all of Savannah, Ga., for appellee.
Before BRYAN and FOSTER, Circuit Judges, and SIBLEY, District Judge.
FOSTER, Circuit Judge.
In this case the material facts are substantially these: On March 14, 1919, appellee filed with the collector of internal revenue at Atlanta a tentative return on form 1031-T for tho year ending December 31, 19.18, showing an estimated tax due of $14,000, accompanied it with a cheek for $3,500 to cover one-fourth of the estimated tax, and requested an extension of time of forty-five days for filing a completed return. On May 1, 1919, a consolidated return was filed with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue for the American Naval Stores Company and the National Tank & Export Company, appellee herein. The consolidated return did not state separately the income and invested capital of each corporation. This return was made on the annual basis for the year 1918. The National Tank & Export Company kept its books on the fiseal year basis, the year ending April 30th. The consolidated return covered only eight months of the year ending April 30, 1919. The return showed no tax due by appellee. The Commissioner declined to allow the consolidated return, and a separate return was filed for appellee on September 28, 1922, covering its fiscal year from May 1,1918, to April 30, 1919, inclusive. In January, 1925, an additional tax of $11,096.70 was assessed against appellee. On April 1, 1925, a credit of $3,386.66, an overpayment for the taxable year 1917, was applied against the deficiency. Appellee paid the balance under protest and brought suit in the District Court to recover eight-twelfths of tho tax assessed, conceding that recovery of the balance was barred. The court found that petitioner was not entitled to file a consolidated return with the American Naval Stores Company, but we are not called upon to review that phase of the court’s finding. However, the court held the assessment was barred by the limitation of five years imposed by section 250 (d) of the Revenue Act of 1918 (40 Stat. 1083) and subsequent acts, holding that it began to run with the filing of the consolidated return, and referred to the tentative return as aiding in reaching this conclusion. Judgment was entered for appellee.
It is settled that the filing of the tentative return did not start the running of the statute of limitations. Florsheim Bros. Drygoods Co. v. U. S., 280 U. S. 453, 50 S. Ct. 215, 74 L. Ed. 542.
In Willingham Loan & Trust Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (C. C. A.) 36 F.(2d) 49, we had oeeasion to consider the effect of the filing of separate returns covering parts of the taxable year, and held that the statute began to run whenever the taxpayer filed returns with the Commissioner that would show facts upon which an assessment for the taxable period could be made. Necessarily, the converse is true. In this case the consolidated return did not show the separate capital and income of each corporation, and was not a complete return for appellee, as it covered only eight months of its taxable year. The Commissioner therefore had not sufficient faets before him upon which to base an assessment. The assessment was in time. Paso Robles Merc. Co. v. Commissioner of Int. Rev. (C. C. A.) 33 F.(2d) 653.
It follows that the judgment of the district court must be reversed.

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