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 "private business and its executives". 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:
PUTNAM NAT. BANK v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.
No. 6173.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 27, 1931.
J. V. Walton and Thos. B. Dowda, both of Palatka, Fla., for petitioner.
, G. A. Youngquist, Asst. Atty. Gen., Se-wall Key, Sp. Asst, to Atty. Gen., C. M. Charest, Gen. Counsel, Bureau of Internal Revenue, and James K. Polk, Jr., Sp. Atty. Bureau of Internal Revenue, both of Washington, D. C., J. Louis Monarch and Norman D. Keller, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Before BRYAN, SIBLEY, and HUTCH-ESON, Circuit Judges.
HUTCHESON, Circuit Judge.
Petitioner, having in 1921 made a partial charge off and had allowed as a bad debt a deduction of $18,000 on account of bonds held by it, was required by the Commissioner when that amount was collected on the bonds in 1925, to return it as taxable income for that year. On appeal to the Board of Tax Appeals, the action of the Commissioner was sustained, and the case comes here for review of the Board’s decision.
The facts, as stipulated and found by the Board, are: That petitioner, a national hank, in 1931 accepted in lieu of notes due it thirty-nine bonds of the face value of $1,000. That, after controversy and protest, petitioner was ordered by the bank examiner to write off 60 per cent, of their face. “On December 23,1921 petitioner’s directors voted to charge off 60% of the face value of the bonds pursuant to the instructions of the chief national hank examiner and on December 31,1921 the amount of $23,400 was charged to profit and loss. The amount so charged off was claimed as a deduction by petitioner in its return, for 1921 and allowed by the respondent. The face value of the bonds was subsequently paid * * * in 1925, $30;000. Sixty per cent of this amount was on petitioner’s booká credited to profit and loss, and reported as taxable income in its return.”
As the Board noted in its opinion, “though the petitioner does contend that the charge off and deduction was not a propeí one, because no loss was actually sustained in 1921 in respect of the bonds nothing was offered to show whether or not petitioner was warranted in making the charge off. The stipulated facts do not cover the matter of partial worthlessness in 1921. * * * ” They “fall far short of establishing that the , charge off as made in 1921 was improper.”
It seems to he taken for granted, as indeed it must be, that, if the 1921 deduction was properly claimed and allowed; that is, if in law and in fact the bonds were in that year ascertained to be to that extent worthless, any later collection of such debt must be retumed.as income. Carr v. Com’r (C. C. A.) 28 F.(2d) 551; Davidson v. Lucas, 59 App. D. C. 176, 37 F.(2d) 806; Sanford & Brooks Co. v. Com’r (C. C. A.) 35 F.(2d) 312, 314; Burnet v. Sanford & Brooks Co., 282 U. S. 359, 51 S. Ct. 150, 75 L. Ed. 383; T. D. R. 62, art. 151; T. D. R. 60, art. 50; Brewster v. Gage, 280 U. S. 327, 50 S. Ct. 115, 74 L. Ed. 457; Fawcus Machine Co. v. U. S., 282 U. S. 375, 51 S. Ct. 144, 75 L. Ed. 397.
Petitioner pitches its case against the action of, the Board upon the proposition that the debt was not in fact determined to be worthless; that no loss in fact actually oo-curred in 1921; that therefore the moneys received in 1925 were not income, but merely payment of the principal due on the debt.
To this contention respondent opposes two propositions: (1) That the record presents nothing from whieh it could be found that the taxpayer did not ascertain and declare a partial loss on account of the bonds; on the contrary, it affirmatively establishes that it did, and that, what would be petitioner’s rights if the record were otherwise, presents for decision, not an issue having real substance, but a mere hypostasis. (2) If petitioner could show that there was no loss, it would, because in 1921 it claimed and received a deduction as for a loss, be now es-topped from doing so.
Respondent’s first proposition is correct, and disposes of petitioner’s appeal.
“The power of taxation is a fundamental and imperious necessity of all government.” Tyler v. U. S., 281 U. S. 503, 50 S. Ct. 356, 359, 74 L. Ed. 991, 69 A. L. R. 758.
“The Sixteenth Amendment was adopted to enable the government to raise revenue by taxation. It is the essence of any system of taxation that it should produce revenue ascertainable, and payable to the government, at regular intervals. Only by such a system is it practicable to produce a regular flow of income and apply methods of accounting, assessment, and collection capable of practical operation.” Burnet v. Sanford, 282 U. S. 359, 51 S. Ct. 150, 152, 75 L. Ed. 383.
“Taxation, as it many times has been said, is eminently practical.” Tyler v. U. S., 281 U. S. 503, 50 S. Ct. 356, 359, 74 L. Ed. 991, 69 A. L. R. 758. Because of these considerations, it is necessary for a taxpayer to show the illegality of the exactions whieh he opposes. Reinecke v. Spalding, 280 U. S. 232, 50 S. Ct. 96, 74 L. Ed. 385. The burden in each ease to establish the faets whieh entitle it to the deduction or relief claimed is upon the taxpayer, and the real point in each case is whether that burden has been sustained by adequate evidence. Reinecke v. Spalding, supra.
Here the Commissioner, as a basis for his determination, found that the bonds, to the extent.whieh he required the collections for 1925 to be returned as income, had been ascertained by the taxpayer to be worthless in 1921, and a deduction on that score claimed by the taxpayer had been allowed it. Before the Board, the taxpayer not only presented no evidence to the contrary, but by stipulation it agreed that the facts were just as the Commissioner first and the Board later, found theih.
The decision of the Board is affirmed.

Question: What is the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives"? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 1