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 "the federal government, its agencies, and officials". 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:
The PANTS RACK, INC., Appellee, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellant.
No. 81-1231.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued Nov. 4, 1981.
Decided Jan. 14, 1982.
Melvin E. Clark, Jr., Tax Division, Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C. (John F. Murray, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Michael L. Paup, Richard Farber, Tax Division, Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., James L. Blackburn, U. S. Atty., William Woodward Webb, Asst. U. S. Atty., Raleigh, N. C., on brief), for appellant.
Curtis A. Twiddy (Thomas L. Norris, Jr., Poyner, Geraghty, Hartsfield & Townsend, Raleigh, N. C., on brief), for appellee.
Before HAYNSWORTH, Senior Circuit Judge, and MURNAGHAN and CHAPMAN, Circuit Judges.
HAYNSWORTH, Senior Circuit Judge:
The question is the interpretation of 26 U.S.C.A. § 6655(d)(2) in the context of a corporation’s duty to pay in advance installments of estimated income tax liability during the first year after revocation of an' election to be taxed under Subehapter S. The district court held that, since in the preceding year the corporation’s net income was not subject to tax levied upon it, it could lawfully estimate its income tax for the current year as nothing and, hence, was not subject to a penalty for not having filed declarations of estimated income tax and not making the estimated payments.
In 1971, when it was incorporated, The Pants Rack, Inc., elected to be taxed as a small business corporation under Subchap-ter S of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. That election remained in effect through its 1976 fiscal year. During the first month of its next fiscal year, however, it revoked that election.
In its fiscal year 1976, it had net income taxable under Subchapter S to its shareholders. Nevertheless, during its 1977 fiscal year it filed no declarations of estimated tax liability and paid no installments of estimated tax. The taxpayer’s 1977 return showed an income tax liability of $84,573.00, to which the Commissioner added a penalty of $2,786.96 under 26 U.S.C.A. § 6655(a) for not having paid installments of estimated tax. The penalty was paid under protest. This action was filed after administrative denial of the taxpayer’s claim for a refund.
Section 6655 provides for the assessment of a penalty upon a corporate taxpayer for underpayment of its estimated income tax liability. Subsection (d), however, provides alternative means by which the taxpayer may be protected from the hazards of underestimation and assessment of the penalty. One of those alternatives, provided by subsection (d)(2), exempts a corporation from the penalty if it has paid “[a]n amount equal to the tax computed at the rates applicable to the taxable year but otherwise on the basis of the facts shown on the return of the corporation for, and the law applicable to, the preceding tax year.” On the basis of “the facts shown on the return . . ., and the law applicable to” language of this subsection, the taxpayer contends that it had no taxable income in 1976 since in that year it was taxable under Subchapter S and, hence, was required to make no estimated tax payments with respect to its 1977 income.
We disagree.
Subchapter S provides a means by which a small business corporation and its shareholders may avoid the double taxation which inevitably occurs when corporate profits are subjected to taxation at the corporate level and its dividends are again taxed when they are paid to shareholders. It is not an exemption from taxation, however. It is simply an attribution of taxable income to the shareholders, who must rat-ably report that income upon their individual tax returns. Of course, that attributed income enters into their estimates of their individual income tax liabilities. Thus, through the shareholders of a Subchapter S corporation, the Internal Revenue Service receives current payments of the estimated tax upon the corporation’s net taxable income.
Upon revocation of the Subchapter S election, however, the stockholders become taxable only upon corporate distributions actually received by them. For income tax purposes, they are no longer treated as having received undistributed corporate profits. The theory of current collection of income taxes requires that, upon revocation of a Subchapter S election, the corporation immediately pick up the former duty of its stockholders to make payments of estimated taxes on corporate income. It is inconsistent with this theory to construe § 6655(d) to exempt a former Subchapter S corporation from making payments of estimated tax during the first year after revoking its earlier election.
It is simply wrong to say that the net income of a Subchapter S corporation is not taxable. It must be reported on a proper return, and 26 U.S.C.A. § 1373 speaks specifically of the “undistributed taxable income” of such a corporation. Under the scheme, there is simply an attribution of such income to the corporation’s shareholders, but that does not mean, contrary to the language of § 1373, that its income is not taxable.
There is no problem in the application of § 6655(d) in this situation. This taxpayer reported its 1976 net income on its 1976 return. That figure was available to it as the basis for the 1977 estimate. Had it used that and made the estimated installment payments, it would have been provided with absolute assurance against assessment of any penalty. It was not required to make any fresh or different calculations than those involved in computing its net income as reported upon its 1976 return.
We read “the law applicable to” language of § 6655(d)(2) to serve only the purpose of avoiding any necessity of recalculating net income of the previous year based upon changes in the applicable statutes or controlling interpretations. The provision obviously relates only to the laws making the income, depending on its own attributes, taxable or nontaxable. It does not allow total disregard of the income simply because of the exempt status of the corporation in the preceding year. Thus the taxpayer is given assurance that, notwithstanding changes in the law relating to the calculation of net income, it may use the net income figure from the previous year’s return, to which, of course, it must apply current rates in computing estimated tax. Only a change in rates, however, involves any recomputation in preparing the estimated tax for the current year.
Thus, § 6655(d) reads comfortably upon the situation of this taxpayer in the first year after revocation of its Subchapter S election. The facts are shown on its return for 1976, and its computation of its net income was presumptively in accordance with then applicable law. It had only to lift that net income figure as the basis for computing its estimated 1977 tax at 1977 rates.
We cannot construe § 6655(d) as an exemption from the estimated tax payment requirements during all of the first year after revocation of its Subchapter S election.
The judgment of the district court is reversed and the case remanded for the entry of a judgment in accordance with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
This is not to say that a corporation in the situation of this taxpayer may not take advantage of deductions available to ordinary corporate taxpayers but not allowable in computing the undistributed net income of a Subchapter S corporation. The “law relating to” language well may be construed to refer to all of that body of law applicable to ordinary corporate taxpayers.

Question: What is the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officialss"? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 1