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 "the federal government, its agencies, and officials". 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:
Evert L. HAGAN, Administrator of the Estate of J. A. Hagan, Deceased, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 14957.
United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.
Nov. 13, 1956.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 3, 1956.
Evert L. Hagan, in pro. per., Jesse A. Hamilton, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.
Charles K. Rice, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, Helen A. Buckley, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., Laughlin E. Waters, U. S. Atty., Edward R. McHale, Bruce I. Hochman, Asst. U. S. Attys., Los Ange-les, Cal., for appellee.
Before BONE, ORR and HAMLEY, Circuit Judges.
HAMLEY, Circuit Judge.
The administrator of the estate of a deceased taxpayer appeals from a judgment dismissing his action for the recovery of income taxes alleged to have been overpaid. The judgment was entered after the filing of the first amended complaint. The single question pre-sentéd here is whether, under the facts alleged in the complaint, appellant’s claims for refund were timely filed.
According to the complaint, decedent taxpayer, J. A. Hagan, and his brother, Evert L. Hagan, had been partners in 1945 and 1946, doing business as the El Rey Cheese Company. On March 15, 1946, decedent made an income tax return for the calendar year 1945, indicating a tax of $592.04 due on net income from the business, which amount was remitted with the return. A like return was made on March 15, 1947, for the calendar year 1946, the income tax then remitted being $3,181.95.
On January 9, 1950, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue filed notices of jeopardy delinquent tax assessments against Evert L. Hagan, personally, for the years 1945 and 1946, based upon the asserted net income of the El Rey Cheese Company. Evert filed a petition in the United States Tax Court for a redeter-mination of his tax liability for those years. A reaudit of the books of the El Rey Cheese Company for those years, which was then made, disclosed that there was no actual net income from that business.
The reaudit was checked by an agent of the Internal Revenue Service. Thereafter, a stipulation was entered in Evert’s proceeding before the United States Tax Court, to the effect that there was no tax liability upon Evert for the years 1945 and 1946, on account of the net income arising out of the operation of the El Rey Cheese Company. This stipulation was adopted by the United States Tax Court in entering its decision of January 19, 1953. The decision ordered and decided: “That there are no deficiencies in income taxes or penalties due from, or overpayment due to, petitioner for the taxable years 1945 and 1946.”
In the meantime, Evert, as administrator of the estate of J. A. Hagan, filed claims with the Collector of Internal Revenue for the refund of income taxes paid by J. A. Hagan for 1945 and 1946 on net income from the business. These claims, filed on September 6, 1952, were grounded upon the same reaudit which the Internal Revenue Service and the United States Tax Court apparently accepted as the basis for the stipulation and decision mentioned above.
On December 10, 1953, appellant, as administrator, wrote to the audit division of the Los Angeles office of the Internal Revenue Service, calling attention to the stipulation, and to the tax court decision of January 19, 1953. He there stated: “My brother’s liability as associate or partner [in the cheese business] could be no greater than mine. Therefore if I owed nothing then he overpaid.”
Conferences and correspondence followed. The Internal Revenue Service took the position that the claims for refund had not been timely filed. On May 17, 1954, appellant for the first time expressly asserted, in writing, that the bar of the statute of limitations had been removed by the effect of § 3801, Internal Revenue Code of 1939, 26 U.S.C.A. § 3801. This view being rejected, appellant brought the instant action on February 15, 1955.
Under the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, which is applicable here, a claim for refund must be filed within three years from the time the return was filed, or within two years from the time the tax was paid. The claims for refund filed on September 6, 1952, with respect to returns filed and taxes paid on March 15, 1946, and March 15, 1947, were therefore barred by this statute of limitations.
Appellant argues, however, that the alleged circumstances are such that § 3801 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, removing the bar of this statute of limitations in certain cases, should be given effect.
Under § 3801, the bar of the statute of limitations is removed if it appears that: (1) A “determination” has been made; (2) such determination concerns the tax liability of a “related” taxpayer; (3) this determination adopts one of the seven circumstances of adjustment described in subsection (b); and (4) except where the determination adopts a circumstance of adjustment described in paragraphs (6) and (7) of subsection (b), such determination adopts a position maintained by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue which is inconsistent with the tax treatment the complaining taxpayer has received.
We may assume, for present purposes, that the decision of the United States Tax Court in Evert L. Hagan’s case is a “determination,” and that Evert and J. A. Hagan are “related” taxpayers, within the meaning of § 3801. This fulfills the first two requirements of § 3801, as enumerated above.
We must next consider whether, under the facts pleaded, one of the seven circumstances of adjustment, as described in subsection (b), is present in this case. It is not denied that the only one of the seven circumstances of adjustment described in subsection (b) which is here pertinent is that which is described in paragraph (1) thereof. This circumstance is that the determination under the income tax laws “requires the inclusion in gross income of an item which was erroneously included in the gross income of the taxpayer for another taxable year or in the gross income of a related taxpayer * *
Under the facts of this case, this statutory “circumstance” would not exist unless the determination of the tax court required the inclusion, in the gross income of Evert L. Hagan, of an item which was erroneously included in the gross income of J. A. Hagan for the same taxable year.
It appears from the complaint that the tax court determination with respect to Evert’s tax liability did not require the inclusion in Evert’s gross income of an item which was erroneously included in the gross income of J. A. Hagan. The tax court decision, quoted in full above, does not require the inclusion of any item in the gross income of Evert. Quite to the contrary, it is there stated that there are no deficiencies in income taxes due from Evert for the years in question.
It follows that, under the facts alleged, appellant has failed to bring his case within § 3801. The bar of the statute of limitations governing the filing of refund claims therefore applies. It was accordingly correct to dismiss the action.
Affirmed.
. The due filing of a claim for refund is a prerequisite to the maintenance of such an action. Section 7422(a), Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U.S.C.A. § 7422(a).
. Section 322(b), Internal Revenue Code of 1939, 26 U.S.C.A. (I.R.C.1939) § 322(b).
. While § 3801, if applicable, removes the bar of this statute of limitations, it, in effect, establishes a new one-year statute of limitations running from the date of the “determination” referred to in that section, gee 26 U.S.C.A. (I.R.C.1939) § 3801(c). Appellee argues that appellant did not effectively act within this new one-year period, but we find it unnecessary to explore this contention.

Question: What is the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officialss"? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 0