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 "natural person (excludes persons named in their official capacity or who appear because of a role in a private organization)". Your task is to determine which of these categories best describes the income of the litigant. Consider the following categories: "not ascertained", "poor + wards of state" (e.g., patients at state mental hospital; not prisoner unless specific indication that poor), "presumed poor" (e.g., migrant farm worker), "presumed wealthy" (e.g., high status job - like medical doctors, executives of corporations that are national in scope, professional athletes in the NBA or NFL; upper 1/5 of income bracket), "clear indication of wealth in opinion", "other - above poverty line but not clearly wealthy" (e.g., public school teachers, federal government employees)." Note that "poor" means below the federal poverty line; e.g., welfare or food stamp recipients. There must be some specific indication in the opinion that you can point to before anyone is classified anything other than "not ascertained". Prisoners filing "pro se" were classified as poor, but litigants in civil cases who proceed pro se were not presumed to be poor. Wealth obtained from the crime at issue in a criminal case was not counted when determining the wealth of the criminal defendant (e.g., drug dealers).

Opinion:
SLYDER v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
No. 10716.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Nov. 9, 1950.
Decided Feb. 1, 1951.
Godfrey L. Munter, Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
Harry L. Walker, Asst. Corporation Counsel, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Vernon E. West, Corporation Counsel, Chester H. Gray, Principal Asst. Corporation Counsel, and George F. Lynch, Asst. Corporation Counsel, all of Washington D. C., were on the brief, for respondent.
Before EDGERTON, PROCTOR, and BAZELON, Circuit Judges.
EDGERTON, Circuit Judge.
Petitioner, who was ill, orally agreed with Josephine Mathy that if she would give up her boarding-house business and take care of him he would give her the money to buy a house, title would be taken in her name, and when either died the house would belong to the other. The parties carried out their agreement. He paid for a house and title was taken in her name. She willed him her residuary estate, including the house, and cared for him until she died. He petitions for review of a ruling of the Board of Tax Appeals ■for the District of Columbia that the transfer of the house is taxable under D.C.Code (1940) § 47-1601 (a), 50 Stat. 683, which taxes all property “transferred from any person who may die seized or possessed thereof, either by will or by law, or by right of survivorship * *
Petitioner contends that in equity and good conscience he inherited nothing that was not already his and therefore no tax is due. But the fact is that he had no legal or equitable right to dispose of the house during the lifetime of Josephine Mathy. In other words, while she lived she had not only legal title but also a beneficial interest. We need not consider whether she had the whole beneficial interest or whether petitioner had a share in it. In either case, when she died he acquired not only her legal title but her beneficial interest. It is immaterial whether he is thought to have acquired it by her will or by the right of survivorship that the oral agreement sought to create, for the tax law expressly covers transfers “by will * * * or by right of survivor-ship”. Accordingly there is no occasion to consider whether the purchase of the house, and the oral agreement, created a trust in petitioner’s favor. Cf. D.C. Code (1940) § 12-303, 31 Stat. 1367-1368.
Statutes sometimes exempt from taxation transfers by will when they are made pursuant to contract, but Congress chose not to exempt such transfers. The choice appears to have been deliberate. In the same sentence by which Congress taxed all transfers from a decedent “by will or by law, or by right of survivorship”, it proceeded to exempt from taxation transfers by deed intended to take effect after the death of the decedent “in cases of a bona fide purchase for full consideration in money or money’s worth”. Cf. In re Howell’s Estate, 255 N.Y. 211, 174 N.E. 457; Jacob v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 9 B.T.A. 636, affirmed 8 Cir., 34 F.2d 233. We need not decide whether this exemption would have covered a deed from Josephine to the petitioner No deed was made. As the Board said in effect, the tax- law applies to what was done, not what might have been done.
No question regarding the amount of the tax is before us, for none was raised before the Board or in petitioner’s brief-
Affirmed.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "natural person (excludes persons named in their official capacity or who appear because of a role in a private organization)". Which of these categories best describes the income of the litigant?

Choices:
not ascertained
poor + wards of state
presumed poor
presumed wealthy
clear indication of wealth in opinion
other - above poverty line but not clearly wealthy

Answer: 0