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 "fiduciaries". 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:
LIT et al. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. LIT et al.
Nos. 5397, 5420.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
July 20, 1934.
Wm. Clarke Mason and Henry Gross, both of Philadelphia, Pa., for Lit estate.
Prank J. Widomnn, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Sewall Key and Helen R. Carloss, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., for the United States.
Carroll G. Walter, of New York City, amicus curias.
Before WOOLLEY, DAYIS, and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.
THOMPSON, Circuit Judge.
These are cross-appeals from a decision of the Board of Tax Appeals. In 1923 Samuel D. Lit transferred shares of stock to a trustee in accordance with the terms of a trust agreement. The trustee was to pay the income to Rosa L. Lit, the settlor’s wife, for life and, upon her death, to the settlor for life witli remainder to the settlor’s son, David J. Lit. The settlor reserved the right to revoke the trust. In 1924 the trustee, the settlor, and tlie two beneficiaries executed an agreement providing, inter alia, that tlie trust might be revoked or amended by agreement of tlie settlor and both beneficiaries. In 3927 the trust was revoked by agreement of all the parties in interest, and a new agreement was executed providing that the trust might be revoked, altered, or amended by tlie settlor with the consent of Rosa L. Lit, the beneficiary of the life estate. The settlor died in 1929 and was survived by his wife and son.
The executors of the settlor’s estate in their tax return omitted from his gross estate the value of the eorpus of the trust. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue included the entire value of the trust in the gross estate and assessed a deficiency. Upon petition by tlie executors for redetermiuation of the assessment, the Board of Tax Appeals rendered a decision in which it exempted from ilio estate tax the value of the life estate of Rosa L. Lit and held, as subject to tax, the value of the remainder. Botli the Commissioner a.nd the executors have petitioned for review of the decision of tlie Board of Tax Appeals.
Tlio issues raised involve the construction of section 302 (e) (d) (h) of the Revenue Act of 1926 (26 USCA § 1094 (c, d, h).
We have given careful consideration to the arguments of the attorneys for the respective parties. Nevertheless, upon review of tlio findings of fact and opinion of the Board of Tax Appeals, wo find omselves in entire accord with the reasoning and conclusions set out in its decision. 28 B. T. A. 853.
The decision of the Board of Ta,x Appeals in both appeals is affirmed.

Question: What is the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "fiduciaries"? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 99