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 "miscellaneous". Your task is to determine which of the following categories best describes the litigant.

Opinion:
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. Henry McK. HASEROT and Bonnie C. Haserot, Respondents.
No. 16184.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
Nov. 3, 1965.
Richard J. Heiman, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., on brief, Louis F. Oberdorfer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, Gilbert E. Andrews, Attorneys, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
John Lansdale, Jr., Cleveland, Ohio, John Lansdale, Jr., Edward J. Hawkins, Jr., Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, Cleveland, Ohio, on brief, for respondent.
Before WEICK, Chief Judge, and TAYLOR and THORNTON, District Judges.
ORDER.
The above cause coming on to be heard on the record, the briefs of the parties, and the argument of counsel in open court, and the court being duly advised.
The contention of the petitioner that Section 304(a) Internal Revenue Code of 1954 applies to the transactions here involved requires consideration of Section 302, the pertinent portion of which provides that corporate redemption of stock be treated as a distribution in part or full payment in exchange for the stock except where it “is not essentially equivalent to a dividend.” The Tax Court did not determine if the redemption here was equivalent to a dividend, the concluding-paragraph of the opinion of the Tax Court stating that:
“Since there is no dispute as to the amount of the gain and since that amount will in either event be taxed as a long-term capital gain, it is not necessary for us to determine in this proceeding whether that result is arrived at via section 351 or via sections 304 and 302(a).”
It appears to this Court, upon review, that a determination of the issue of equivalency might indeed be dispositive of the thrust of petitioner’s argument on the Section 304 application to the transaction herein and that such -a determination should be made. This Court has previously held that this is a factual matter. (Woodworth v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 218 F.2d 719, 724, C.A. 6th 1955, and Chandler’s Estate v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 228 F.2d 909, C.A. 6th 1955.) As such, it should be decided initially by the Tax Court.
This matter is hereby remanded to the Tax Court for further proceedings in accordance with the views expressed in this order.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "miscellaneous". Which of the following categories best describes the litigant?

Choices:
fiduciary, executor, or trustee
other
nature of the litigant not ascertained

Answer: 1