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 "fiduciaries". 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:
JOHNSTON v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.
No. 88.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit-
Dec. 7, 1936.
SWAN, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
William W. Spalding, of Washington, D. C. (Mason, Spalding & McAtee, of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for petitioner.
Robert H. Jackson, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Sewall Key and Berryman Green, Sp. Assts. to the Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Cohen, Cole, Weiss & Wharton, of New York City (John F. Wharton and Harry J. Leffert, both of New York City, of counsel), for petitioner.
Proskauer, Rose & Paskus, of New York City (Walter Mendelsohn, Wilbur H. Friedman, and Harry Silverman, all of New York City, of counsel), amicus curia;.
Before L. HAND, SWAN, and CHASE, Circuit Judges.
CHASE, Circuit Judge.
During the taxable year 1932 the petitioner sold at a loss noncapital assets which he owned personally. During the same year he was one of the partners in a partnership which sold noncapital assets of the partnership at a profit. The partnership filed its information return showing this profit, and the petitioner included his share of it in his own return. The amount of gain so included was less than the loss he had sustained. He deducted the above-mentioned loss to the extent of his share of the partnership gain, thus diminishing what would otherwise have been his net taxable income as shown by his return. The Commissioner, deciding that the deduction was not allowable in view of section 23 (r) of the Revenue Act 1932 (26 U.S.C.A. § 23 note), added it to the petitioner’s net income as shown in his return and determined the deficiency accordingly. A majority of the Board upheld that action.
Section 23 (r) of the 1932 Revenue Act limited deductions which might be taken from income on account of losses sustained on the sale or exchange of noncapital as-, sets “to, the extent of the gains from such sales or exchanges.” Since it is undisputed that the profits of the partnership with which we are now concerned were derived from the sale of assets held less than two years and so from the sale of noncapital assets as defined in section 101 of the Revenue Act 1932 (26 U.S.C.A. § 101 note) and that the personal losses of the .petitioner were sustained in the sale of such assets, the sole issue is whether the petitioner’s share of such partnership gains is to be treated as though derived from the sale of noncapital assets which the petitioner owned personally.
It is argued with much force that as a partnership is not a taxpayer its income distributable to a partner and taxed to him should be held to retain in the partner’s return all the characteristics by way of derivation which it had in the information return filed by the partnership as there is nothing in section 23 (r) which is expressly to the contrary. And this idea is thought to be somewhat fortified by the fact that when Congress passed the National Industrial Recovery Act in 1933 section 218 (d), 48 Stat. 209, provided that: “Effective as of January 1, 1933, section 182 (a) of the Revenue Act of 1932 is amended by inserting at the end thereof a new sentence as follows: ‘No part of any loss disallowed to a partnership as a deduction by section 23 (r) shall be allowed as a deduction to a member of such partnership in computing net income.’ ” Reliance is placed upon the usual inference that when a statute is amended the purpose is that of change rather than a declaration of its former meaning unless the latter intention clearly appears.
Yet we think these considerations must yield to others that seem to be more potent in their bearing upon the issue. Though a partnership is not a taxpayer (section 181 of the 1932 Revenue Act [26 U.S.C.A. § 181 and n'ote]) and each partner is taxed on his distributive share of partnership income (section 182, 47 Stat. 222 [see 26 U.S.C.A. § 182 and note]), the partnership is a tax .computing unit whose income is to be calculated in the same manner and on the same basis as that of an individual, with the exception that no deductions for charitable contributions are allowable (section 183 of the act [26 U.S.C.A. § 183 and note]). See Earle v. Commissioner (C.C.A.) 38 F.(2d) 965. In such computation noncapital losses are of course deductible to the extent of noncapital gains under section 23 (r), but, when the partnership return shows net income, a partner’s distributive share is to be entered in his own return as his own income derived from the partnership without retaining the peculiar character it had in the partnership return unless Congress has expressly so provided and then only for the purpose stated. The general rule of section 182 indicates that this is so, and, unless it is, there would be no reason for section 184 of the act of 1932 (26 U.S.C.A. § 184 note), which provides that for the purpose of the normal tax a partner shall be allowed as an additional credit “his proportionate share of such amounts of dividends and interest specified in section 25 (a) and (b) as are received by the partnership”; nor for section 186 of the act of 1932 (47 Stat. 223), providing for showing in the partnership return “the proper part of each share of the net income which consists, respectively, of ordinary net income, capital net gain, or capital net loss,” and for taxing the partners “at the rates and in the manner provided in section 101 (a) and (b), relating to capital net gains and losses.” So, too, section 188 of the act of 1932 (26 U.S.C.A. § 186 and note) permits a partner to take credit for partnership income, war profits, and excess profits taxes imposed by foreign countries or possessions of the United States to the extent provided in section 131 (26 U.S. C.A. § 131 and note). These provisions are to be read in connection with the general rule of sections 182 and 183, for they are parts of the same statute and show that Congress did intend to permit partnership income to retain its peculiar character for certain express purposes when carried over into the return of a partner. And this expression of purposes includes the negative of any others. Botany Mills v. United States, 278 U.S. 282, 289, 49 S.Ct. 129, 131, 73 L.Ed. 379. Moreover, we are dealing with an enactment restricting a right to take loss deductions from income which must bear the tax burden imposed unless Congress has seen fit to permit the offset claimed. The right to take deductions from gross income is wholly a statutory privilege which may be granted or withheld. Lloyd v. Commissioner (C.C.A.) 55 F. (2d) 842.
While it is true that each partner owns his share of the net worth of the partnership of which he is a member, United States v. Hack, 8 Pet. 271, 8 L.Ed. 941, and consequently his distributive share of the partnership net income is taxable directly to him, United States v. Kaufman, 267 U.S. 408, 45 S.Ct. 322, 69 L.Ed. 685, it is equally true’that the partnership status has not been disregarded in the scheme of income taxation set up by Congress. See Shearer v. Burnet, 285 U.S. 228, 52 S.Ct. 332, 76 L.Ed. 724. That scheme provides in general for the carrying over into his own return of a partner’s distributive share of partnership income as computed in the partnership information return as so much ordinary income without noticing its source as shown by the partnership return except in those instances for which especial provision has been made. So the petitioner must treat his share of the partnership gain as ordinary income in his return, since he cannot sustain the claimed right to have it retain there its status as a gain derived from the sale of noncapital assets by bringing it within one of the exceptions to the general rule which Congress has created. In view of this we feel bound to treat the above-mentioned section 218 (d) of the National Industrial Recovery Act as having been inserted out of abundant caution when that law was passed and as but a clarification of existing law. Helvering v. New York Trust Co., 292 U.S. 455, 469, 54 S.Ct. 806, 810, 78 L.Ed. 1361.
Affirmed.

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

Choices:

Answer: 0