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 respondent. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "federal government (including DC)", specifically "other agency, beginning with "F" thru "N"". Your task is to determine which specific federal government agency best describes this litigant.

Opinion:
OLIVER v. UNITED STATES.
No. 12269.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 19, 1948.
Raymond W. Martin, of LaGrange, Ga., for appellant.
John P. Cowart, U. S. Atty., and T. Reese Watkins, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Macon, Ga., for appellee.
Before SIBLEY, WALLER, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The Ford sedan was adjudged forfeited because- used in transporting twenty-three one gallon jugs to the vicinity of a distillery which the evidence indicates was about.to be operated contrary to law with intent to defraud the United States of taxes; the evidence authorizing the further finding that the jugs were utensils about to be used in that enterprise. That the' distillery had not been fully set up and no liquor had been made, though the mash was ready, does not defeat forfeiture under 26 U. S. C. A. § 3321(b)(3). The evidence is that the car belonged to the claimant and was being used by her husband and son-in-law, and though she testifies she did not consent to or know of its use on this occasion, it appeared that her husband frequently used it. This was no such showing of theft or trespass in its use as to make a defense against the forfeiture. It is not clear that any application for remission of the forfeiture was before the court, or that it was finally denied by the judgment rendered. The judgment of forfeiture is affirmed, without prejudice to any application that may be made for such remission.
Affirmed.

Question: This question concerns the first listed respondent. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "federal government (including DC)", specifically "other agency, beginning with "F" thru "N"". Which specific federal government agency best describes this litigant?

Choices:
Food & Drug Administration
General Services Administration
Government Accounting Office (GAO)
Health Care Financing Administration
Immigration & Naturalization Service (includes border patrol)
Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
Interstate Commerce Commission
Merit Systems Protection Board
National Credit Union Association
National Labor Relations Board
Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Answer: 5