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 "private business (including criminal enterprises)". Your task is to determine what category of business best describes the area of activity of this litigant which is involved in this case.

Opinion:
MADE RITE INVESTMENT CO., Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. MADE RITE TRANSPORTATION CO., Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. MADE RITE MANUFACTURING CO., Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
Nos. 20117-20119.
United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.
Feb. 28, 1966.
Wayne Hea, of Hea & Anderson, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioners.
Richard M. Roberts, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Meyer Rothwacks, Richard J. Herman, 3. Edward Shillingburg, Attys., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., for respondent.
Before CHAMBERS, MERRILL and DUNIWAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Petitioners seek review of a decision of the Tax Court upholding the Commissioner in disallowance of corporate income tax exemptions and deductions for the years 1956 through 1959. Petitioners are three of four corporations organized for the purpose of taking over various phases of what theretofore had been a single business enterprise operating as a partnership. Multiple surtax exemptions were disallowed under section 269 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 because the Tax Court found that the principal purpose for the organization of the three petitioner corporations rather than a single corporation was the avoidance of income taxes. Salary deductions were disallowed because the Tax Court found that reasonable compensation for certain employees during 1956 and 1957 was less than the amounts which were deducted by the taxpayers. This appeal raises two issues.
1. Was the Tax Court correct in its determination that the principal purpose for the organization of the three corporations was the avoidance of tax?
2. Was the Tax Court correct in its determination of the amounts representing reasonable compensation paid to officers and employees of Investment and Transportation during 1956 and 1957?
Both issues are factual in nature, and hence the question on review is whether the Tax Court’s findings were clearly erroneous. The Tax Court in its opinion, reported sub nom., Dillier v. Comm’r, 41 T.C. 762 (1964), carefully considered and weighed the business purposes asserted by petitioners as reasons for setting up four corporations, and dealt with the proof (and lack of it) that the salaries allowed by the several corporate taxpayers were for personal services actually rendered to the taxpayer.
In both respects we are satisfied that the findings of the Tax Court are not clearly erroneous.
Affirmed.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)". What category of business best describes the area of activity of this litigant which is involved in this case?

Choices:
agriculture
mining
construction
manufacturing
transportation
trade
financial institution
utilities
other
unclear

Answer: 6