What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Your task is to identify the issue in the case, that is, the social and/or political context of the litigation in which more purely legal issues are argued. Put somewhat differently, this field identifies the nature of the conflict between the litigants. The focus here is on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis.
Your task is to determine the specific issue in the case within the broad category of "economic activity and regulation".

Opinion:
Ralph E. WILLIAMS and William C. Mills, Appellants, v. Randolph W. THROWER, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and Hugh D. Jones, District Director of Internal Revenue Service, Parkersburg, West Virginia, Appellees. Roy K. HENSLEY and John D. Jarrell, Appellants, v. Randolph W. THROWER, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and Hugh D. Jones, District Director of Internal Revenue Service, Parkersburg, West Virginia, Appellees.
Nos. 71-1963, 71-1964.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
March 27, 1972.
Robert H. Burford, Huntington, W. Va., on brief for appellants on both cases.
W. Warren Upton, U. S. Atty., Scott P. Crampton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Meyer Rothwacks, Crombie J. D. Garrett, and Joseph H. Reiter, Washington, D. C., on brief for appellees in both cases.
Before BOREMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and BRYAN and WINTER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellants, Ralph E. Williams and William C. Mills, filed a complaint in the district court on October 22, 1969, asking the court to restrain the United States from assessing and collecting certain unpaid federal wagering taxes. Appellants, Roy K. Hensley and John D. Jarrell, had filed a similar complaint on September 19, 1969. On August 2, 1971, the district court dismissed both complaints relying on McAlister v. Cohen, 308 F.Supp. 517 (S.D.W.Va.1970), aff’d, 436 F.2d 422 (4 Cir. 1971), and these appeals followed.
The appellants concede that the contentions raised in their brief were rejected by this court in McAlister, supra, and Washington v. United States, 402 F.2d 3 (4 Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 978, 91 S.Ct. 1641, 29 L.Ed.2d 145 (1971); however, they urge this court to reconsider those decisions.
Upon examination and consideration of the records and the briefs we see no reason to depart from our prior holdings. Accordingly, we dispense with oral argument and affirm the judgments below.
Affirmed.

Question: What is the specific issue in the case within the general category of "economic activity and regulation"?

Choices:
taxes, patents, copyright
torts
commercial disputes
bankruptcy, antitrust, securities
misc economic regulation and benefits
property disputes
other

Answer: 0