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:
Richard J. BORCHERS; Jane E. Borchers, Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Appellee.
No. 90-2724.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted May 14, 1991.
Decided Aug. 23, 1991.
Bernie H. Beaver, Minneapolis, Minn., for appellants.
David A. Hubbert, argued, Washington, D.C. (Gary R. Allen and Richard Farber, on the brief), for appellee.
Before FAGG, Circuit Judge, and HENLEY, Senior Circuit Judge, and MAGILL, Circuit Judge.
FAGG, Circuit Judge.
Richard J. Borchers and Jane E. Borch-ers appeal the tax court’s decision denying them an investment tax credit on computer equipment Richard leased to the Borchers-es’ wholly-owned corporation, Decision Systems, Inc., in 1982. See 26 U.S.C. § 46(e)(3)(B) (1982) (amended 1988). We affirm.
This is the second time we have had this case before us. Initially the tax court held the Borcherses were entitled to an investment tax credit, Borchers v. Commissioner, 55 T.C.M. (CCH) 1469 (1988), and the Commissioner appealed. We could not effectively review the decision because the tax court’s failure to offer an analysis “[made] it impossible for us to determine the correctness of [its] decision.” Borchers v. Commissioner, 889 F.2d 790, 791 (8th Cir.1989). Thus, we vacated the tax court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. Id. On remand the tax court engaged in a reasoned analysis changing the result and disallowing the credit. Borchers v. Commissioner, 95 T.C. 82 (1990). The Borcherses now appeal.
The Borcherses argue that after we vacated and remanded the tax court’s first decision, the tax court could only explain, not change, the initial result. We disagree. Although our mandate controls all matters within its scope, a court on remand is free to revisit any issue we did not expressly or impliedly decide. Newball v. Offshore Logistics Int'l, 803 F.2d 821, 826 (5th Cir.1986); see also Bethea v. Levi Strauss & Co., 916 F.2d 453, 456 (8th Cir.1990). In our earlier decision, we did not decide whether the Borcherses were entitled to an investment tax credit or confine the tax court to explaining its first decision. Accordingly, the tax court was free to change the result on remand.
We now turn to the merits of the case. A noncorporate lessor of property seeking an investment tax credit under 26 U.S.C. § 46(e)(3)(B) must show the property is leased for less than 50% of its useful life. Here, the leases’ terms are twelve months, and the computer equipment’s useful life is six years. Thus, the leases’ written terms are less than 50% of the equipment’s useful life. In determining the duration of the leases, however, the tax court used the “realistic contemplation” test. 95 T.C. at 88. Under this test, written lease terms are not dispositive. See Connor v. Commissioner, 847 F.2d 985, 988 (1st Cir.1988). Instead, all the facts and circumstances surrounding the lease are examined, see 95 T.C. at 89, to ascertain the realistic contemplation of the leasing parties when the property is first put into service, Owen v. Commissioner, 881 F.2d 832, 834 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 1113, 107 L.Ed.2d 1020 (1990); Connor, 847 F.2d at 989; see also McEachron v. Commissioner, 873 F.2d 176, 177 (8th Cir.1988) (adopting realistic contemplation test when challenged lease contains no definite term). Because the Borcherses do not challenge the use of this test, we need not consider the test used in McNamara v. Commissioner, 827 F.2d 168, 172 (7th Cir.1987) (when lease not tax motivated, written term controls unless Commissioner shows lease is a sham).
The Borcherses had the burden to prove they realistically contemplated the leases would cover less than half of the equipment’s useful life. Connor, 847 F.2d at 989. The tax court determined the Borcherses failed to satisfy this burden of persuasion. 95 T.C. at 94. We review the tax court’s determination for clear error. Connor, 847 F.2d at 989.
Reviewing the stipulated record, we find no clear error. Although the Borcherses showed the leases’ written terms were less than 50% of the equipment’s useful life, the record reflects the Borcherses controlled Decision Systems, Richard leased only to Decision Systems in 1982, and in 1983, Richard again leased to Decision Systems all the equipment purchased and leased to the corporation in 1982. See 95 T.C. at 84-87, 90. The record also shows Richard leased other computer equipment to Decision Systems in 1981, renewed all these leases in 1982, and renewed some of the leases again in 1983. See id. at 85-86, 90. We believe the tax court’s analysis of the relevant factors and circumstances, id. at 89, 94, supports its conclusion that the Borcherses failed to prove the parties realistically contemplated the terms of the leases would be less than half of the equipment’s useful life, id. at 94.
Accordingly, we affirm the tax court’s decision.

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