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:
EUGENE ASHE ELECTRIC CO. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.
No. 11330.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 12, 1946.
H. C. Wade, of Fort Worth, Tex., for petitioner.
Harold C. Wilkenfeld, Robert N. Anderson, and Louise Foster, Sp. Assts. to the Atty. Gen., Sewall Key, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., and J. P. Wenchel, Chief Counsel, Bureau of Internal Revenue, and Ro-llin H. Transue, Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, both of Washington, D. C, for respondent.
Before McCORD, WALLER, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
McCORD, Circuit Judge.
This appeal involves income and excess profits taxes of the Eugene Ashe Electric Company for the year 1940.
The important facts are these: The taxpayer is a Texas corporation engaged in the electrical contracting business. In 1940 the- corporation’s capital stock consisted of 250 shares, of which the president, Eugene Ashe, owned 190 shares. On March 20, 1940, the directors of the corporation voted to Ashe a salary of $15,000 for the year 1940, and he was paid the sum of $2,600 during that year; the balance of $12,400 was entered as a credit to his personal account on the books of the company. No payment of this balance was made during the two and one-half month period following the close of the year 1940.
A statement of the taxpayer’s account in the First National Bank of Fort Worth, Texas, disclosed a balance of $11,489.70 on February 21, 1941, and a balance of $5,255.70 on March 15, 1941. The taxpayer also had established credit with the bank in the amount of $100,000 during the years 1940 and 1941. Only $25,000 was drawn against this amount prior to January Í, .1941, and no further withdrawals were made during the following two and one-half months.
The balance sheet of the corporation showed a surplus of $25,654.88 as of January 1, 1941, and cash in the bank of $4,267.29.
The taxpayer filed its return o.n the accrual basis, and Ashe filed his return on the cash receipts basis. For the year in question Ashe did not report the $12,400 as income in his original return, but after having the facts called to his attention by a revenue agent and after talking the matter over with his accountant, he filed an amended return on December 27, 1941, in which the additional amount was reported. The evidence is without dispute that Ashe could have drawn checks on the account of the company without the signature of anyone else.
In reaching' its determination that the salary of the president of the corporation was not a deductible business expense, the Tax Court found that the surplus account did not represent the true financial condition of the corporation, since certain hotel bonds were carried on the books at $10,000, whereas such bonds were admittedly worthless in 1935, and it further found that the corporation made it a practice to carry worthless accounts and notes on the books at face value.
The corporation may not escape the penalty of the statute by claiming constructive payment when in fact no payment had been actually made. For the taxpayer to come within the legislative grace granted by the Congress and to claim and secure the deduction, it must bring its case within the terms of the statute as written. Section 24 (c), Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev.Code, § 24 (c) ; Helvering v. Price, 309 U.S. 409, 60 S.Ct. 673, 84 L.Ed. 836; Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. United States, 288 U.S. 269, 270, 275, 53 S.Ct. 337, 77 L.Ed. 739; Eckert v. Burnet, 283 U.S. 140, 141, 51 S.Ct. 373, 75 L.Ed. 911; White v. United States, 305 U.S. 281, 292, 59 S.Ct. 179, 83 L.Ed. 172; Deputy v. DuPont, 308 U.S. 488, 493, 60 S.Ct. 363, 84 L.Ed. 416; New Colonial Ice Co. v. Helvering, 292 U.S. 435, 440, 54 S.Ct. 788, 78 L.Ed. 1348; P. G. Lake v. Commissioner, 5 Cir., 148 F.2d 898; Quinn v. Commissioner, 5 Cir., 111 F.2d 372; Hart v. Commissioner, 1 Cir., 54 F.2d 848.
The decision of the Tax Court is Affirmed.

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