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:
HELLEBUSH v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.
No. 6254.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
June 29, 1933.
Frank S. Bright, of Washington, D. C. (H. Stanley-Hinriehs, of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for petitioner.
Helen R. Carloss, of Washington, D. C. (G. A. Youngquist, Sewall Key, C. M. C'har-est, and Thos. F. Callahan, all of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for respondent.
Before MOORMAN, HICKS, and SI-MONS, Circuit Judges.
HICKS, Circuit Judge.
Petition by F. A. Hellebush to review the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (24 B. T. A. 661) affirming the action of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in assessing on redetermination against him as the transferee of the Blackburn Varnish Company deficiencies in income and profits taxes in the sum of $12,303.42 for the period from January 1, 1927, to April 19, 1927.
The case isi before us upon the findings of fact by the Board. The Blackburn Varnish Company, an Ohio corporation, had for many years prior to the taxable year 1927 conducted a successful business. In the spring of that year its stockholders decided that they would quit business and liquidate-the corporation. The nephew of one of its stockholders was an official of the Cook Paint & Varnish Company, a Missouri corporation. Through this nephew negotiations were opened for its sale to the Cook Company, which negotiations were thereafter carried on on behalf of the Blackburn Company by its president, Helle-bush, and its secretary-treasurer, Lippleman. The negotiations finally resulted in Cook, president of the Cook Company, coming to Cincinnati, the home office of the Blackburn Company, where the deal was closed on April 20,1927, and on that date the following steps were taken to consummate it:
First, there was a special meeting of all the stockholders of the Blackburn Company in person or by proxy at whieh a resolution was unanimously adopted authorizing the dissolution and liquidation of the company and the conveyance of its assets to Hellebush and Lippleman as trustees for the stockholders with full powers to dispose of the company’s property. The resolution further directed these trustees after “final liquidation” and deduction of expenses to distribute all remaining property or proceeds in kind pro rata to the stockholders and contained an instruction to the officers of the company to take the necessary steps to procure its dissolution and the conveyance of its property to the trustees.
Second, following the stockholders’ meeting on the same day, the officers of the Black-hum Company “in consideration of the sum of one dollar ($1.09) and other good and valuable considerations” executed a bill of sale of all the personal property of the Black-hum Company to the above named trustees for the stockholders, and the corporation by its proper officers likewise on the same day executed and delivered to these trustees, designating them as trastees for the stockholders, its deed conveying to them its real estate in fee simple.
Third, on the same day an agreement was executed for the sale to the Cook Company of all the assets to whieh Hellebush and Lippleman, as trustees for the stockholders, had received title from the Blackburn Varnish Company. It was signed by the trustees and by Cook, president of the Cook Company, and by the Southern Ohio Savings Bank & Trust Company, escrow agent. The instrument recited that the trustees agreed to convey all property of whatever kind or nature' whieh they had received from the Blackburn Company except cash and accounts and hills receivable and further recited the concurrent delivery of a deed to the real estate and of an instrument of conveyance of all other property to the escrow agent for whieh a deposit of the sum of $100,000 on the purchase price was made. The Cook Company agreed to use reasonable diligence to collect the outstanding accounts and bills receivable and to account weekly therefor to the trastees.
The entire consideration paid by the Cook Company was $269,175.82. Existing liabilities against the Blackburn Company, amounting to $9,000, were paid by the trustees prior to the dissolution of the Blackburn Company which took place on June 2, 1927.
Respondent fixed the capital gain accruing to the seller on these transactions at $85,-530.86, being the difference between the selling price of $269,175.82 and the hook value of the assets sold, $183,644.96. The tax on the capital gain was ascertained to be $12,-303.42 and is the amount in dispute. Petitioner concedes that if the Blackburn Company is liable for the tax he is liable as a transferee.
Sections 213 and 233 of the Revenue Act of 1926, 44 Stat. 9, ch. 27 (26 USCA §§ 954, 985) provide that the gross income of corporations shall include gains derived from sales of, or dealings in, property. The applicable Treasury ruling is article 548 of Regulation 69, printed in the margin. The provisions of this Regulation have been incorporated in the regulations for all of the Revenue Acts since the Act of 1918. Congress has not .seen fit to change it and we think it should now be given effect. Heiner v. Colonial Trust Co., 275 U. S. 232, 48 S. Ct. 65, 72 L. Ed. 256; Universal Battery Co. v. U. S., 281 U. S. 580, 50 S. Ct. 422, 74 L. Ed. 1051. It has been specifically upheld in Taylor Oil & Gas Co. v. Comm’r, 47 F.(2d) 108 (C. C. A. 5).
So the question here is, whether under this regulation when applied to the facts above set forth, there was a distribution of the assets of the Blackburn Company in kind to its stockholders upon dissolution and a sale of the assets by the stockholders through the trustees to the Cook Company, or whether the sale should he treated as a sale by the corporation.
We think it is clear that there was no distribution in kind, in the sense of a division, of the assets of the Blackburn Company to its stockholders on April 20, 1927, the date of the resolution appointing the trustees for the stockholders. Neither was there any distribution in kind to the stockholders “upon dissolution” whieh took place on June 2, 1927, by the filing of a certificate of abandonment or dissolution with the secretary of state of Ohio as provided by section 8741 of the Ohio General Code. Moreover the stockholders did not have power to appoint trustees to settle the affairs of the Blackburn Company and divide its property among the stockholders, until after the formal dissolution on June 3, 1937. See section 8742, Ohio General Code, supra. Until that date the Blackburn Company, like corporations generally, had exclusive power to act for itself. The stockholders’ resolution of April 20, 1927, seemed to recognize this for it undertook to authorize and direct the officers of the Blackburn Company to take such legal steps as were necessary and proper to procure its dissolution. The utmost that can be said for this resolution is that it constituted an agreement between the stockholders upon a procedure with which they were themselves eon-tented and through which the Blackburn Company could sell its property. However satisfactory and unobjectionable this arrangement may have been as between themselves [Chattanooga Savings Bank v. Brewer, 9 F.(2d) 982, 989 (D. C.) ] it could not impair the right of the Commissioner to challenge its validity for purposes of taxation. The law will look through forms to substance [U. S. v. Phellis, 257 U. S. 156, 42 S. Ct. 63, 66 L. Ed. 180; Board v. Comm’r, 51 F.(2d) 73, 75 (C. C. A. 6)] and will recognize the outstanding fact, that the Cook Company had thereby acquired the property and assets of the Blackburn Company just as was contemplated before the stockholders’ meeting on April 20th. We think that this was a sale by one company to the other upon the profits of which the government was entitled to its taxes.
The order of the Board of Tax Appeals is therefore affirmed.
"Art. 548. Gross income of corporation in liquidation. — When a corporation is dissolved, its affairs are usually wound up by a receiver or trustees in dissolution.. The corporate existence is continued for the purpose of liquidating the assets and paying the debts, and such receiver or trustees stand in the stead of the corporation for such purposes. (See section 282 and articles 1293 and 1294.) Any sales of property by them are to be treated as if made by the corporation for the purpose of ascertaining the gain or loss. No gain or loss is realized by a corporation from the mere distribution of its assets in kind upon dissolution, however they may have appreciated or depreciated in value since their acquisition,”

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: 1