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:
MILLER v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. HAWK v. SAME.
Nos. 7796, 7797.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
April 7, 1939.
■Homer Hendricks, of Washington, D. C., Bernard J. Onen, of • Battle Creek, Mich., and Miller & Chevalier, of Washington, D. C., for petitioners.
James W. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Sewall Key and Maurice J. Mahoney, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Before SIMONS, HAMILTON, and ARANT, Circuit Judges.
SIMONS, Circuit Judge.
In an earlier opinion under the same style, 6 Cir., 84 F.2d 415, we held that a transfer of stock by Miller and Mrs. Hawk’s decedent, majority stockholders of the Enquirer-News Company of Battle Creek, to Federated Publications, Inc., for a consideration partly in cash and partly in stock, was a transfer in pursuance of a merger or consolidation as defined by § 112 of the Revenue Act of 1928, subsection (b), 26 U.S.C.A. § 112(b). We thereupon set aside decisions of the Board of Tax Appeals sustaining deficiencies of the petitioners for 1928 based upon a recognition of realized gain in the transaction as though it were a sale or exchange under subsection (a). When the cases again came before the Board of Tax Appeals upon remand, the Board made a recomputation of gain in the application of subsection (c). ' The general rule for the recognition of gain upon the sale or exchange of property is.stated in subsection (a), and requires the entire amount of gain or loss to be recognized subject to exceptions thereafter indicated. These exceptions include (subsection (b) (3) the exchange of stock in a corporation which is a party to a reorganization, or in pursuance of a plan of reorganization, and (subsection c) gains from exchanges not solely in kind. In reference to the latter it is provided: “(1) If an exchange would be within the provisions of subsection (b) (1), (2), (3), or (5) of this section if it were not for the fact that the property received in exchange consists not only of property permitted by such paragraph to he received without the recognition of gain, but also of other property or money, then the gain, if any, to the recipient shall he recognized, but in an amount not in excess of the sum of such money and the fair market value of such other property.”
The facts are not in dispute. August 15, 1928, Miller and Hawk entered into three written agreements, by the first of which they agreed to sell all of the outstanding capital stock of the Enquirer-News Company and to deliver all of the stock, whether presently owned by them or not, for the sum of $500,000. The second agreement, contemporaneous with the first, provided that the new corporation should pay cash in the amount of $375,000 for three-fourths of the Enquirer-News Company stock, and should exchange with the petitioners 6,250 shares of new common stock in the transferee corporation for onefourtli of the stock of the Enquirer-News Company. The third agreement designated the escrow agent, and defined its authority.
The Board treated the three agreements as related steps in a unitary transaction, held the transfer of the petitioners’ stock to have been in exchange for money and property and that the gain on the entire transaction must be recognized but limited to the sum of money received. The petitioners contend that there was not one transaction, but two, an exchange of stock in pursuance of a reorganization and a sale of other stock for cash, that the gain realized upon the stock sold is to he recognized, but that no gain is to be recognized upon the exchange. They point out that the stipulated facts recite that the cash was used to pay for 600 shares of stock transferred by the petitioners and minority stockholders, and that their remaining shares were transferred to the new corporation in satisfaction of stock subscriptions. The separateness of the transactions, they say, is established by the mandate of this court and the implications of our opinion. It is conceded by both parties that the computation of tax liability by each on the theory of liability advanced is correct.
It is doubtless true that the form in which the transaction was consummated was a sale of certain stock and an exchange of other stock. This does not, however, preclude an inference that there was but a single transaction, unitary in purpose and effect, by which the transferee was to acquire, and did, all of the stock of the Battle Creek News-Enquirer, and by which the petitioners were to retain a continuing substantial interest in the property transferred.
It has been the rule, approved in a long line of cases, that for income. tax purposes the component steps of a single transaction are not to be treated separately. Prairie Oil & Gas Co. v. Motter, 10 Cir., 66 F.2d 309; Tulsa Tribune Co. v. Commissioner, 10 Cir., 58 F.2d 937; Ahles Realty Corp. v. Commissioner, 2 Cir., 71 F.2d 150, 151; First Seattle Dexter Horton National Bank v. Commissioner, 9 Cir., 77 F.2d 45, and our recent decision in Ashland Oil & Refining Co. v. Commissioner, 6 Cir., 99 F.2d 588, the Swiss Oil case. The contemporaneous execution of the agreements, their apparent interdependence, the undertaking of the petitioners to deliver all of the stock, whether owned by them or not, and the insistence that neither petitioner would consent to a sale of his interest until each was assured that he would continue in the business of the new company, an insistence that led not only to a stipulation in the agreement with the purchasers to that effect but to a like understanding between the petitioners themselves, all support an inference, reasonably to be drawn, that the transaction by which the petitioners received both cash and stock was single in character.
Nor is there anything in our mandate or our earlier opinion that expressly or by implication precluded the Board from treating the transfer of shares for stock and money as unitary. In determining that the transfer was in pursuance of a reorganization, and that the petitioners had retained a definite and material interest in the property transferred, representing a substantial part of its value, in response to the test laid down in Helvering v. Minnesota Tea Co., 296 U.S. 378, 56 S.Ct. 269, 80 L.Ed. 284, we said [84 F. 2d 418] : “It will therefore be seen that the petitioners acquired an interest in the new corporation almost equal to 50 per cent, of the interest they had in the old company, and exactly equal to 25 per cent, of the value of the total number of shares transferred.” It is plain that in determining whether the interest retained was substantial in character we considered it not only in relation to the total number of shares of the transferee corporation, but in relation also to the value of the total number of shares originally owned and transferred, and that both comparisons contributed to our conclusion.
The view we take is we think wholly in accord with that of Starr v. Commissioner, 4 Cir., 82 F.2d 964; Commissioner v. Harris, 3 Cir., 92 F.2d 374, is readily distinguishable from the instant case on the facts, arid if United States v. Rodgers, 3 Cir., 102 F.2d 335, decided February 20, 1939, upon rehearing, is contra, which does not appear to be clear, we decline to follow it.
The decisions of the Board of Tax Appeals are 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