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:
Jacob A. DOLL and Esther Doll, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
No. 15669.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Submitted March 10, 1966.
Decided April 12, 1966.
Arthur Markowitz, Robert H. Griffith, York, Pa., (Robert H. Griffith, York, Pa., on the brief), for petitioners.
Richard M. Roberts, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, Chief, Appellate Section, David O. Walter, Howard M. Koff, Tax Division, Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., and Mitchell Rogin, Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, D. C., for respondent.
Before SMITH and FREEDMAN, Circuit Judges, and MILLER, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
This case is before the Court on a petition to review a decision of the Tax Court. The question before us is whether the Tax Court erred in its determination that an assessment of a tax deficiency for the taxable year 1954 was not barred by the statute of limitations. 26 U.S.C.A. 6501(a). We are of the opinion that the case is governed by Lucas v. Pilliod Lumber Co., 281 U.S. 245, 50 S.Ct 297, 74 L.Ed. 829 (1930). It was therein held that the statute of limitations did not bar the assessment of a tax deficiency where, as in the instant case, the return failed to meet the requirements of the statute. The return filed by the petitioners in the case before us was not signed by either of them.
The judgment of the Tax Court will be affirmed on its opinion.

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