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:
Ethel OLINGER, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
No. 15870.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
June 8, 1956.
Robert J. Hobby, Lester L. May, A. D. Burford, Dallas, Tex., for petitioner.
Charles K. Rice, Lee A. Jackson, Robert N. Anderson, Carolyn R. Just, Asst. Atty. Gen., John Potts Barnes, Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, Rollin H. Transue, Sp. Atty., Washington, D. C., for respondent.
Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and RIVES and JONES, Circuit Judges.
HUTCHESON, Chief Judge.
This appeal is by the taxpayer from a decision of the Tax Court, sustaining the commissioner’s determination as to deficiencies and penalties. Her counsel concedes that the taxpayer, who conducted her own defense poorly and ineffectively, failed to carry her burden of proof as to the taxes in the original ninety day letter, and the decision should be affirmed as to those deficiencies. He, however, insists that the commissioner has not borne his burden as to the additional deficiency for 1947, pleaded in his amended answer, and as to the fraud penalty for 1949, and that the decision should be reversed as to these. It is his position that the question presented by this appeal should be resolved by reference to the burden of proof on each issue and to the fact that each of the parties failed to introduce proof sufficient to sustain his burden.
For the reasons to be stated, we agree with these views. The first of these reasons is that, while we cannot permit the failure of the taxpayer, through unwillingness, ineptness or inability to sustain the burden imposed upon her as petitioner, to excuse her from the consequences of that failure, neither can we permit the commissioner to escape the consequences of his failure to sustain his burden.
The second is that, while petitioner’s proof is sketchy and unsatisfactory, indeed wholly insufficient, in support of her attack upon the deficiencies, the commissioner’s proof on the issues upon which he carries the burden is no better.
As pointed out in petitioner’s brief, with regard to 1947, this proof consisted merely of showing the purchase of 100 shares of stock on Dec. 20, 1947, for $2900, and the further purchase in 1947 of 200 shares of another stock for $1800. No proof was submitted as to the taxpayer’s net worth at the beginning or ending of the period, and the application of the cash' expenditure method as here with neither a head nor a tail to it will not do.
With regard to the fraud issue, the commissioner has failed to show, by convincing evidence, that there was unreported income in any of the years and, but for the fact that the burden of proof was on the taxpayer as to the original deficiencies, the commissioner would be hard put to it to sustain a recovery of any amount. '
One of the best definitions of tax fraud is to be found in Davis v. Commissioner, 10 Cir., 184 F.2d 86, 87, 22 A.L.R.2d 967:
“Fraud implies bad faith, intentional wrongdoing and a sinister motive. It is never imputed or presumed and the courts should not sustain findings of fraud upon circumstances which at the most create only suspicion.”
Cf. Mitchell v. Commissioner, 5 Cir., 118 F.2d 308.
No sufficient proof supporting, or rather buttressing the claim of deficiency in 1949 was made. The testimony as to the supposed receipt of $7000 in connection with a bond made for Jettie Bass was completely inadequate to show that property of any such value was received at any time. It was certainly inadequate to show receipt of such sum in 1949. Illustrative of the desultory nature of the commissioner’s questioning and his proof in general is the entirely meaningless question asked by him, why the taxpayer did not report stock purchases in her income. Such purchases did not have to be reported as income. It is true that the commissioner’s notice of deficiency did state that taxpayer’s adjusted income for 1949 was $45,000, and that this was based on increased assets in that year, and that, because of taxpayer’s failure to sustain her burden to overthrow it, the deficiency assessment, of course, stands up.
When it comes, however, to his proof on the issue of fraud, where the burden lay on the commissioner, we think that it fails as proof for lack of evidence of a starting or an ending point. While it is true that the taxpayer’s proof and attitude, not only in this matter but in matters where she came in conflict with the Office of Price Administration, was not satisfactory, this did not supply the deficiencies in the commissioner’s proof, which, despite his contention here to the contrary, consisted of little more than the fact that he had determined the deficiency claimed. The case on the issues where the burden was on the commissioner was presented and tried too much on the theory, “Give a dog an ill name and hang him”.
The decision is accordingly affirmed in part and in part reversed as hereinabove set out
. Rule 32 Tax Court Rules of Practice, 26 U.S.C.A. (I.R.C.1954) following section 7453; Helvering v. Terminal R. Ass’n, 8 Cir., 89 F.2d 739; W. H. Weaver, 25 T. C. 1067.

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