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.
When coding the detailed nature of participants, use your personal knowledge about the participants, if you are completely confident of the accuracy of your knowledge, even if the specific information is not in the opinion. For example, if "IBM" is listed as the appellant it could be classified as "clearly national or international in scope" even if the opinion did not indicate the scope of the business. 

Your task concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)". Your task is to classify the scope of this business into one of the following categories: "local" (individual or family owned business, scope limited to single community; generally proprietors, who are not incorporated); "neither local nor national" (e.g., an electrical power company whose operations cover one-third of the state); "national or multi-national" (assume that insurance companies and railroads are national in scope); and "not ascertained".

Opinion:
SEVIER TERRACE REALTY COMPANY, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
No. 15409.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
Feb. 20, 1964.
George D. Webster, Washington, D. C. (Davies, Rich berg, Tydings, Landa & Duff, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for petitioner.
Robert A. Bernstein, Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C. (Louis F. Oberdorfer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, L. W. Post, Stephen B. Wolfberg, Attys., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for respondent.
Before WEICK, Chief Judge, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge, and McALLISTER, Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM.
This ease involved questions concerning the taxpayer’s basis of 303 acres of land known as Mount Ida Farm and located partly within and partly without the corporate limits of Kingsport, Tennessee. A further issue was presented as to whether the taxpayer in computing its income tax may deduct, as an ordinary and necessary business expense, the fair market value of 12 lots transferred to a social and recreation center to be used only by owners or residents in the taxpayer’s subdivision rather than handling it as a capital expenditure allocable to the basis of its unsold lots.
The parties agreed that taxpayer’s basis for the 303 acres was the fair market value of an undivided one-half interest in the land on March 11, 1922 and the fair market value of the other one-half on March 1, 1913.
The evidence as to values offered in the Tax Court by the taxpayer and the Government was sharply in conflict. It was carefully considered by Judge Raum of that court in a well written opinion. He determined the values on the respective dates somewhere between the values testified to by the taxpayer’s experts and the Government’s experts. He was of the view that the values testified to by the taxpayer’s experts were unrealistic and he did not credit them. The values determined by the Tax Court were within the range of the testimony of the expert witnesses. The court further took into account values placed on the land in earlier tax returns filed by predecessors in interest of the taxpayer which we think was proper. Robertson v. Routzahn, 75 F.2d 537 (C.A. 6); Grill v. United States, 303 F.2d 922 (Ct.Cl.); Campagna v. United States, 290 F.2d 682 (C.A. 2); Marsack’s Estate v. Commissioner, 288 F.2d 533 (C.A. 7). See also Interstate Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. RKO Teleradio Pictures, Inc., 318 F.2d 73, 78 (C.A. 6), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 945, 84 S.Ct. 352.
In our opinion, the decision of the Tax Court with respect to the values of the land was supported by substantial evidence and is not clearly erroneous. We find nothing prejudicial to taxpayer in the Tax Court’s allocation of the basis.
We are also of the view that the value of the 12 lots contributed by taxpayer for a recreation center should be treated as a capital expenditure allocable to the basis of its unsold lots and is not deductible as a business expense. Country Club Estates, Inc. v. Commissioner, 22 T.C. 1283.
The decision of the Tax Court is affirmed on the opinion of Judge Raum reported in T.C. Memo. 1962 — 242.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)". What is the scope of this business?

Choices:
local
neither local nor national
national or multi-national
not ascertained

Answer: 0