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 "federal government (including DC)", specifically "other agency, beginning with "F" thru "N"". Your task is to determine which specific federal government agency best describes this litigant.

Opinion:
J. L. ENOCHS, District Director of Internal Revenue, Appellant, v. T. U. SISSON, Appellee.
No. 18979.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
April 4, 1962.
Robert E. Hauberg, U. S. Atty., E. R. Holems, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Jackson, Miss., Thomas A. Frazier, Atty., Dept, of Justice, Louis F. Oberdorfer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, I. Henry Kutz, Carolyn R. Just, Daniel K. Mayers, Attys., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellant.
G. E. Estes, Jr., Gulfport, Miss., for appellee.
Before RIVES, CAMERON and BELL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The question presented by this appeal is whether a summary judgment granted before the expiration of ten days after the time fixed for hearing is a valid judgment. Appellee Sisson filed this action for a refund of taxes for the calendar years 1953 and 1954 under the Federal Insurance Contribution Act. After the appellant Enochs, District Director of Internal Revenue, had filed his answer, appellee moved for summary judgment with supporting affidavit. The record shows that the motion was served upon the appellant, but the certificate of service is omitted and it is not contended that any time was fixed for the hearing of the motion. Some months after the motion was filed the court below granted summary judgment in favor of appellee.
It is provided under Rule 56(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., that a motion for summary judgment “shall be served at least 10 days before the time fixed for the hearing.” No time was ever fixed for the hearing of this motion, and it is undisputed that the trial court did not have any rule fixing such time. See Rule 78, F.R.Civ.P. We do not think that the order entered by the court below, in the absence of a notice to the appellant of the time fixed for the hearing, was within its juridiction under the quoted portion of Rule 56. And cf. also Rule 6, F.R.Civ.P., and Bowdidge v. Lehman, District Director of Immigration, 6 Cir., 1958, 252 F.2d 366.
The judgment appealed from is, therefore, vacated and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "federal government (including DC)", specifically "other agency, beginning with "F" thru "N"". Which specific federal government agency best describes this litigant?

Choices:
Food & Drug Administration
General Services Administration
Government Accounting Office (GAO)
Health Care Financing Administration
Immigration & Naturalization Service (includes border patrol)
Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
Interstate Commerce Commission
Merit Systems Protection Board
National Credit Union Association
National Labor Relations Board
Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Answer: 5