opinion: HASTIE, Circuit Judge.
  This is a petition for review of a decision of the Tax Court upholding the Commissioner’s finding of a deficiency in petitioner’s 1953 income tax return. The Tax Court held that in the circumstances of this case statutory penalties paid to the City of Pittsburgh and the School District of Pittsburgh for late payment of certain mercantile taxes are not deductible from gross incomes as “ordinary and necessary” business expenses within the meaning of Section 23(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939. 26 U.S.C., 1952 ed., § 23(a). The deductions were disapproved on the ground that their allowance would directly and seriously frustrate the public policy of Pennsylvania by mitigating punishment imposed for failure to pay taxes when due.
  The facts are these. In 1947 the Pennsylvania legislature passed the Pennsylvania School Mercantile License Tax Act and also authorized the City of Pittsburgh to levy a similar tax. The school tax was a tax of % mill on each dollar of annual gross business transacted by a wholesale vendor within the district. The incidence of the city tax was the same, but the rate was one mill on each dollar. The taxes became effective in 1948.
  With these taxes in force, petitioner, whose business is buying and selling nonferrous metals, sought legal advice as to whether the proceeds of sales of copper scrap by a Pittsburgh seller to a Pittsburgh buyer were properly included as taxable gross receipts, where the scrap metal was procured from various places outside of Pennsylvania and delivered in New Jersey for use there, as directed by the Pennsylvania buyer. Counsel advised petitioner that the involvement of interstate commerce was such that the proceeds of these transactions were probably not subject to the local taxes and, moreover, that no tax should be tendered in this doubtful situation because the Pennsylvania cases clearly held that a voluntary payment of tax precludes any subsequent recovery of the money. H. J. Heinz Co. v. School District of Pittsburgh, 1952, 170 Pa.Super. 441, 87 A.2d 85; Phipps v. Kirk, 1939, 333 Pa. 478, 5 A.2d 143; Wilson v. School District of Philadelphia, 1937, 328 Pa. 225, 195 A. 90, 113 A.L.R. 1401. Only by withholding' payment could the doubtful question of liability be tested. Accordingly, petitioner did not include these sales in its 1948 return.
  Thereafter, a deficiency was assessed against petitioner and the question was fully litigated. The final ruling in the case was a denial in 1953 of petitioner’s application to the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Keystone Metal Co. v. City of Pittsburgh, 1953, 346 U.S. 887, 74 S.Ct. 139, 98 L.Ed. 391, rehearing denied 346 U.S. 917, 74 S.Ct. 273, 98 L.Ed. 413. The ruling of the State Supreme Court, 1953, 374 Pa. 323, 97 A.2d 797, had upheld a decision of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County that the sales were taxable, but had reversed a holding that the statutory penalty of 1% per month for late payment should not be imposed in this case. As to this the state court of last resort said: “The interest charge in the present instance of 6% per annum is not an unusual rate, and the penalty of 1% per month is not so unduly harsh or sufficient in amount to be calculated to deter or intimidate a party affected thereby from resorting to the courts in order to test the construction or validity of this legislation.” 374 Pa. at page 333, 97 A.2d at pages 801-802. At the conclusion of the litigation the taxpayer paid the penalty and then claimed that amount in its 1953 income tax return as a deduction.
  Section 23(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 permits deductions from gross income of a business for “ordinary and necessary” expenses. In the application of this subsection an expense which is “ordinary and necessary” in business contemplation may nevertheless be disallowed because its allowance would frustrate some proper state or national public policy. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Heininger, 1943, 320 U.S. 467, 64 S.Ct. 249, 88 L.Ed. 171. This principle is frequently applied to prevent the deduction of sums paid to the state as statutory penalties. Burroughs Building Material Co. v. Commissioner, 2 Cir., 1931, 47 F.2d 178; Helvering v. Superior Wines & Liquors, Inc., 8 Cir., 1943, 134 F.2d 373; DeLaney v. City and County of Denver, 10 Cir., 1950, 185 F.2d 246. “The sense of the rule that statutory penalties are not deductible from gross income is that the penalty is a punishment inflicted by the state upon those who commit acts violative of the fixed public policy of the sovereign, wherefore to permit the violator to gain a tax advantage through deducting the amount of the penalty as a business expense, and thus to mitigate the degree of his punishment, would frustrate the purpose and effectiveness of the public policy.” Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Longhorn Portland Cement Co., 5 Cir., 1945, 148 F.2d 276, 277.
  This rule and its normal application have most recently been reaffirmed in Tank Truck Rentals, Inc. v. Commissioner, 1958, 356 U.S. 30, 78 S.Ct. 507, 2 L.Ed.2d 562, and the companion case, Hoover Motor Express Co. v. United States, 1958, 356 U.S. 38, 78 S.Ct. 511, 2 L.Ed.2d 568. However, in the Tank Truck Rentals case the Court carefully qualified its ruling by saying that “the rule as to frustration of sharply defined national or state policies is [not] to be viewed or applied in any absolute sense. * * * Although each case must stand on its own facts * * * the test of nondeductibility always is the severity and immediacy of the frustration resulting from allowance of the deduction. The flexibility of such a standard is necessary if we are to accommodate both the congressional intent to tax only net income, and the presumption against congressional intent to encourage violation of declared public policy.” 356 U.S. 35, 78 S.Ct. at page 510. Significantly, the Court cited with approval as an illustration of this limitation, Jerry Rossman Corp. v. Commissioner, 2 Cir., 1949, 175 F.2d 711, in which a tax deduction of the amount of a statutory penalty was found proper and not offensive to any defined public policy. Cf. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Sullivan, 1958, 356 U. S. 27, 78 S.Ct. 512, 2 L.Ed.2d 559, decided the same day as Tank Truck Rentals, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra; National Brass Works v. Commissioner, 9 Cir., 1950, 182 F.2d 526, 20 A.L.R.2d 590. See also the division of the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on the question whether state policy was in fact frustrated in any serious or significant way in a given situation in United States v. Winters, 10 Cir., 1958, 261 F.2d 675.
  It follows that decision in this case must turn upon the question whether in the actual circumstances as they appear here the allowance of a federal tax deduction in the amount of the state imposition would directly and in a significant way frustrate a defined state policy against the conduct which resulted in the penalty.
  In sustaining the very “penalty” involved in this case the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania clearly indicated that it is not the policy of Pennsylvania to prevent or deter a taxpayer from postponing the payment of a tax beyond the due date where such delay is necessary for a bona fide test of a doubtful question as to the validity or applicability of the tax. Keystone Metal Co. v. City of Pittsburgh, supra. Accord, Graybar Electric Co. v. School District of Pittsburgh, 1954, 378 Pa. 294, 106 A.2d 413. Indeed, a state’s legitimate concern that taxes be paid promptly must be subordinated to the overriding public policy of dealing fairly with the individual by affording him an opportunity, free of coercion, to challenge and test in the courts any tax of doubtful legality. Oklahoma Operating Co. v. Love, 1920, 252 U.S. 331, 40 S.Ct. 338, 64 L.Ed. 596; Wadley Southern R. Co. v. State of Georgia, 1915, 235 U.S. 651, 35 S.Ct. 214, 59 L.Ed. 405. Thus, it is neither factually correct nor legally permissible to characterize the imposition of the statutory “penalty” in the circumstances of this case as an effort to punish, prevent or deter conduct violative of state policy. The Tax Court’s conclusion that allowance of the claimed deduction would frustrate Pennsylvania public policy was unwarranted.
  The decision will be reversed.
  . We are not impressed by an argument of tlie Commissioner that the taxpayer ‘ failed to take advantage oí a subsequent change in this legal situation. It was not until 1952 that the City and the School District adopted regulations providing for the first time for payment of mercantile taxes under protest as a basis for suit for refund. The deficiency in the taxpayer’s 1948 mercantile tax had long since been assessed and litigation of the matter in the Pennsylvania courts was well advanced. At that late date taxpayer could not be expected to make a fresh start utilizing the newly available method of contesting liability to avoid risk of additional penalty for late payment.
instruction: 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.