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:
Forest LEMASTERS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 71-1540.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Argued May 23, 1972.
Decided Aug. 10, 1972.
F. Pen Crosby, Indianapolis, Ind., for petitioner-appellant.
Fred B. Ugast, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Virginia H. Gallagher, Meyer Rothwacks, Loring W. Post, Virginia M. Hopkinson, Attys., Tax Div., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., for respondent-appellee.
Before CLARK, Associate Justice, SPRECHER, Circuit Judge, and CAMPBELL, District Judge.
Associate Justice Tom C. Clark, Supreme Court of the United States, Retired, is sitting by designation.
Senior District Judge William J. Campbell of the Northern District of Illinois is sitting by designation.
SPRECHER, Circuit Judge.
We are asked to reconsider the Tax Court’s conclusion that certain payments made by a husband to his wife under a separation agreement are installment payments of a principal sum not deductible on his federal income tax return.
The taxpayer and Myrtle M. Lemasters were married in 1924 and separated in 1950. On March 12, 1953, they entered an agreement whereby the taxpayer would pay his wife half the net profits for the rest of her life and half his salary for ten years from a business in which he owned a 34 percent interest. While the agreement remained in effect, the taxpayer sold his interest in the business; the couple then entered a new agreement.
The agreement dated February 27, 1964, includes provisions that Myrtle M. Lemasters would receive the lump sum of $80,000 of the purchase price for the taxpayer’s share of the business; that $8,000 would be payable in advance for the first year; that quarterly payments of $2,000 would be made thereafter until the $80,000 was paid in full; and that “the promises and covenants herein contained shall be binding on their personal representatives, heirs, successors in interest or assigns as the case may be.”
Myrtle M. Lemasters received a payment of $8,000 on or about June 30, 1964. Subsequently, quarterly payments of $2,000 were made on January 2, April 1, July 1 and October 1 of each year, including 1965. Taxpayer claimed alimony deductions of $8,000 each for the years 1964 and 1965. The Commissioner’s disallowance of the deductions was confirmed by the Tax Court.
A husband is allowed as a deduction amounts payable as support to his wife under a written separation agreement if those amounts are includable in the gross income of the wife. 26 U.S.C. § 215. The wife’s gross income includes “periodic payments.” 26 U.S.C. § 71(a) (2). Installment payments discharging part of an obligation, the principal sum of which is specified in the separation agreement, are not treated as periodic payments. Section 71(c) (1).
Despite section 71(c) (1), however, there are two ways for payments otherwise considered installment payments taxable to the husband to be considered periodic payments taxable to the wife. If the agreement provides that the principal sum is payable over a period enduing more than ten years from the date of the agreement, then the installment payments are treated as periodic payments. Section 71(c) (2). In this case the final payment is due to be paid under the agreement on October 1, 1973. Since this is less than ten years from the date of the agreement of February 27, 1964, section 71(c) (2) does not apply to this case.
The second exception has been added by Treasury regulations and provides that, where payments are to be made over a period ending ten years or less from the date of the agreement, they may be considered periodic payments if they meet two conditions (26 C.F.R. § 1.71-1 (d) (3) (i)):
(a) Such payments are subject to any one or more of the contingencies of death of either spouse, remarriage of the wife, or change in the economic status of either spouse, and
(b) Such payments are in the nature of alimony or an allowance for support.
Taxpayer contends that the payments are in the nature of an allowance for support and that there are two contingencies, each of which satisfies the first condition: (1) An Indiana statute setting forth that state’s public policy regarding separation agreements creates a contingency of change of economic status; and (2) Provisions in the separation agreement create a contingency in the event of the wife’s death prior to the death of the taxpayer.
The government contends that the payments were made in satisfaction of a property right, rather than as an allowance for support, that the two contingencies do not in fact exist, and that consequently the two conditions were not fulfilled.
Inasmuch as the taxpayer must establish both conditions to prevail, and since we conclude that the Tax Court correctly determined that the first condition regarding the contingencies was not satisfied, we need not determine whether the payments were in the nature of an allowance for support or in satisfaction of a property right or settlement. See Houston v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 442 F.2d 40 (7th Cir. 1971).
Taxpayer posits the first purported contingency on the Indiana statute (Burns Ind.Stat.Ann. § 3-1219a IC 1971, 31-2-6-1) which provides: “It is the declared public policy of this state that separation agreements which have been entered into between husband and wife . . . fairly, without fraud, duress or undue influence, shall be favored. . . .” The statute then provides that in the event of a subsequent divorce, “if the court hearing such action shall find such agreement to have been entered into fairly without fraud, duress, or undue influence, and its provisions to be equitable, the court shall in its discretion approve such agreement.
Taxpayer argues that the question of whether such an instrument was executed fairly, without fraud, duress or undue influence is a matter left to the court’s discretion; hence the statute creates a contingency. Taxpayer seeks to draw a parallel between the Indiana statute and a Washington statute providing that a divorce decree as to alimony or child support may be modified and altered by the court from time to time as circumstances may require. The Commissioner ruled that the Washington statute imposed a contingency of change of economic status on payments made thereunder and qualified them as periodic payments includable in the wife’s gross income. Rev.Rul. 59-190, 1959-1 Cum.Bull. 23-24.
The Indiana statute expressly declares the public policy of the state to be that separation agreements between husband and wife shall be favored. The statute strengthens the status of post-nuptial agreements. In re Webb, 160 F.Supp. 544, 551 (S.D.Ind.1958). The language requiring that such agreements be entered into without fraud, duress or undue influence simply repeats the conditions which would invalidate any contract. The requirements that such contracts be entered into fairly and be equitable would be applied to any contract by a court of equity, such as a divorce court. In any event, however, the Indiana statute obviously does not introduce any contingency involving a “change in the economic status of either spouse,” as does the Washington statute.
Taxpayer purports to find a second contingency in the fact that the separation agreement provides that, if the husband predeceases the wife, the wife would be entitled to her lawful rights of inheritance; if the order of death is reversed, the husband would be entitled to his lawful rights of inheritance. Taxpayer argues that since taxpayer and his wife have no children, on Myrtle M. Le-masters’ death, the unpaid payments would revert to taxpayer. This result necessarily assumes that the wife leaves no will. Taxpayer implies that the inheritance language in the agreement amounts to a mutual promise by the parties not to make a will, but the language employed does not expressly nor impliedly constitute mutual promises not to make wills. Nothing in the agreement prevents the wife from making a will and bequeathing the unpaid payments to anyone of her choice.
Even if the wife bequeathed the remaining payments to her husband by will or if they devolved to him by intestate succession, the payments would be subject to the possession of her personal representative and to the expenses of administering her estate and the payment of other claims and allowances. Burns Ind.Stat.Ann. § 7-123, IC 1971, 29-1-7-23. As the Tax Court noted in its opinion, in order to qualify payments as periodic, “it is the payment which must be contingent, not the possibility of a substitute recipient.”
The promises and covenants of the separation agreement are binding not only on the parties themselves but also on their personal representatives, heirs, successors in interest or assigns. The payments are not contingent upon either party’s death.
The decision of the Tax Court is affirmed.
. “Payments meeting tlie requirements of subdivision (i) are considered periodic payments for the purposes of section 71 (a) regardless of whether — (a) The contingeneies described . . . are set forth in the terms of the . . . agreement, or are imposed by local law. ...” 26 C.F.R. § 1.71(d) (3) (ii).

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: 0