opinion: PER CURIAM.
  This is an appeal from a decree of the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The appellant is a creditor in the bankrupt estate of Joseph Ciccone. The appellee, Collector of Internal Revenue, had filed proof of debt in the bankruptcy proceedings for income tax amounting to $1,127.54 and claimed priority for this amount. Before the referee the Collector introduced a proof of debt, an assessment which had been made, and assessment lists certified by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. An Internal Revenue agent testified from the Department’s records that the tax was for a deficiency assessed in 1933 for the year 1930. The appellee also introduced in evidence Form No. 870 ’ signed by the bankrupt consenting to the assessment. The agent who made the assessment was dead and the bankrupt’s books containing the 1930 records were missing, so that the appellee was unable to produce the evidence upon which the assessment was made. The referee allowed the claim and was ' sustained by the District Court.
  We think that proof of the assessment list with the accompanying certificate of the Commissioner was sufficient to establish a prima facie case that the tax assessed was due. United States v. Rindskopf, 105 U.S. 418, 26 L.Ed. 1131; Western Express Co. v. United States, 8 Cir., 141 F. 28. The appellant not only failed to overcome this prima facie case but in fact presented evidence which had the effect of supporting the government’s claim.
  The decree is affirmed.
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.
  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 "private business (including criminal enterprises)", specifically "unclear". Your task is to determine what subcategory of business best describes this litigant.
choices: auto industry chemical industry drug industry food industry oil & gas industry clothing & textile industry electronic industry alcohol and tobacco industry other unclear