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 "miscellaneous". Your task is to determine which of the following categories best describes the litigant.

Opinion:
Anne K. GOSSMANN, Transferee of Model Farms Dairy, Appellant, v. Seldon R. GLENN, Collector of Internal Revenue, Appellee.
No. 11268.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
Oct. 11, 1951.
Skaggs, Hays & Fahey, Louisville, Ky., Wm. Mac Kenzie, Jr., Louisville, Ky., of counsel, for appellant.
Theron L. Caudle, Charles Oliphant, Ellis N. Slack, Washington, D. C., David Walls, and Charles F. Wood, all of Louisville, Ky., Henry L. Spencer, Washington, D. C., Dee Hanson, Washington, D. €., for appellee.
Before ALLEN, MARTIN and Mc-ALLISTER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This appeal from the dismissal by the District Court of the taxpayer’s complaint, asserting a claim for refund of taxes based on the disallowance of a claimed deduction as an alleged ordinary and necessary büsiness expense, came on to be heard; and the transcript of record and the oral arguments and briefs of the attorneys for the contending parties have been duly considered;
And it appearing that the findings of fact of the District Court are supported by substantial evidence and are not clearly erroneous, and that the court’s conclusions of law are based upon sound and correct legal principles;
It is ordered that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed. 91 F.Supp. 1005.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "miscellaneous". Which of the following categories best describes the litigant?

Choices:
fiduciary, executor, or trustee
other
nature of the litigant not ascertained

Answer: 1