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:
John DEEGAN and Dorothy S. Deegan, Paul Schacknow, Stanley L. Manes and Jocelyn G. Manes, Jesse M. Farrow and Joan H. Farrow, Max H. Rhulen and Evelyn J. Rhulen, Walter A. Rhulen and Judith Rhulen, Jerome Reiss and Naomi Reiss, James P. Kelley and Louise Kelley, Harry E. Danielson and Mary Danielson, and Steven Roy Schacknow, Petitioners-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 949, Docket 85-4176.
United States Court of Appeals, Secon'd Circuit.
Argued March 26, 1986.
Decided April 8, 1986.
Howard L. Mann, Schwartzman, Weinstock, Garelik & Mann, New York City (Herman Schwartzman and Donald A. Pitofsky, of counsel), for petitioners-appellants.
Teresa E. McLaughlin, Dept, of Justice, Tax Div., Washington, D.C. (Roger M. Olsen, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Michael L. Paup and Anne Belanger Durney, of counsel), for respondent-appellee.
Before KAUFMAN, MANSFIELD and MESKILL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellants are limited partners in Northern Hills Partnership (“Northern Hills”). Northern Hills was organized by general partner Ted Shapiro for the purpose of investing in two foreign films, “Ms. Don Juan” and “Don’t Open the Window.” “Ms. Don Juan,” featuring Brigitte Bardot, follows the predictable exploits of a female Don Juan “who finds pleasure in destroying the lives of various men.” “Don’t Open the Window,” a horror film, details the pandemonium caused by a piece of exterminating equipment that “bring[s] back to life newly-dead human beings as bloodthirsty monsters.”
The Commissioner assessed deficiencies in appellants’ federal tax returns after denying deductions and investment tax credits attributable to the partnership. The Tax Court found that the film investments were not activities engaged in “for profit.” I.R.C. § 183. Accordingly, the taxpayers were precluded from claiming deductions by the terms of I.R.C. § 183(a). The investors now appeal.
We affirm, substantially on the basis of the Tax Court’s thorough opinion. The court properly noted that where’ a general partner bears primary responsibility for managing the business of a limited partnership, the relevant inquiry is whether the general partner harbored “an intent and objective of realizing a profit” through the investments. Brannen v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 471, 506 (1982), aff'd, 722 F.2d 695 (11th Cir.1984). After a thorough review of the record, we agree with the Tax Court that Shapiro failed to establish the partnership’s “for profit” status. See Treas. Reg. § 1.183-2(b).
We also affirm the ruling of the Tax Court that appellants may not deduct the interest expense attributable to the nonrecourse notes, with which the partnership paid $3,100,000 of the films’ purchase price. The court determined that the fair market values of the films were far below their stated purchase prices, and concluded that the partnership had no economic incentive to repay the notes. Accordingly, the court correctly found that the non-recourse notes did not constitute genuine debts, and therefore should not yield interest deductions. Odend’hal v. Commissioner, 80 T.C. 588, 603 (1982), aff'd, 748 F.2d 908, 912 (4th Cir.1984), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 3552, 86 L.Ed.2d 706 (1985); Estate of Franklin v. Commissioner, 544 F.2d 1045, 1049 (9th Cir.1976).
Appellants argue in the alternative that they should be permitted to take depreciation deductions to the extent of their cash investment of $550,000. Where an investment activity is not “for profit,” however, deductions are available only to the limited extent provided by 26 U.S.C. § 183(b). Accordingly, the Tax Court properly disallowed depreciation deductions based on the total cash investment in the partnership. See Brannen v. Commissioner, supra, 722 F.2d 695, 706 (11th Cir. 1984).
Accordingly, the decision of the Tax Court is affirmed.
. The film opened in France under the title, “Si Don Juan Etait Une Femme.” Accordingly, it is also known in the United States by the literal translations, "If Don Juan Were a Woman” and "If Don Juan Were a Lady.”
. Title 26 U.S.C. § 183 provides in relevant part:
(a) General rule — In the case of an activity engaged in by an individual or an electing small business corporation (as defined in section 1371(b)), if such activity is not engaged in for profit, no deduction attributable to such activity shall be allowed under this chapter except as provided in this section.
(b) Deductions Allowable — In the case of an activity not engaged in for profit to which subsection (a) applies, there shall be allowed—
(1) the deductions which would be allowable under this chapter for the taxable year without regard to whether or not such activity is engaged in for profit, and
(2) a deduction equal to the amount of the deductions which would be allowable under this chapter for the taxable year only if such activity were engaged in for profit, but only to the extent that the gross income derived from such activity for the taxable year exceeds the deductions allowable by reason of paragraph (1).
(c) Activity not engaged in for profit defined —For purposes of this section, the term "activity not engaged in for profit” means any activity other than one with respect to which deductions are allowable for the taxable year under section 162 or under paragraph (1) or (2) of section 212.
. Deegan, et. al. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1985-219 (August 23, 1985). The Tax Court concluded that even had the films performed as well as projected by Shapiro’s appraisers, the return would not have been sufficient to pay the principal and interest due on the nonrecourse notes. In the case of Don’t Open the Window, however, the court erroneously based its calculations on the predicted film rentals to the partnership rather than the estimated gross distribution revenues. Nonetheless, we do not believe this calculation was determinative of the outcome of the case.

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: 0