opinion: Frank S. NORCROSS, Thomas M. Farr and Margaret Hundley Farr, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America.
  No. 11497.
  United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
  Argued April 21, 1955.
  Decided April 29, 1955.
  Thomas M. Farr, Camden, N. J., for appellants.
  Dudley J. Godfrey, Jr., Washington, D. C. (H. Brian Holland, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ellis N. Slack, A. F. Prescott, Special Assts. to the Atty. Gen., Raymond Del Tufo, Jr., U. S. Atty., Newark N. J., Charles H. Nugent, Asst. U. S. Atty., Camden, N. J., on the brief), for the United States.
  Before GOODRICH, McLAUGHLIN and STALEY, Circuit Judges.
  PER CURIAM.
  This is an income tax case. The appellants sue to recover taxes for the years 1942-1943 which they say were erroneously paid to the government. The case turns upon the question whether Section 107(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, 26 U.S.C. § 107(a), gives the plaintiffs rights. This, in turn, depends upon the nature of the employment of two of the plaintiffs, members of the bar, for legal representation of certain trusts and estates.
  The' trial court concluded that the nature of the employment did not establish a case for the plaintiffs. Because the conclusion rests upon a fact finding as to the nature of their employment by clients, it is within Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. rule 52(a), 28 U.S.C., and is not to be. reversed unless clearly erroneous. We do not find it clearly erroneous. Indeed, the whole matter was so thoroughly and clearly analyzed by Judge Madden in the district court that we are content to affirm on the basis of his opinion reported in D.C.N.J.1953, 114 F.Supp. 51.
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 "other". Your task is to determine what subcategory of business best describes this litigant.
choices: medical clinics, health organizations, nursing homes, medical doctors, medical labs, or other private health care facilities private attorney or law firm media - including magazines, newspapers, radio & TV stations and networks, cable TV, news organizations school - for profit private educational enterprise (including business and trade schools) housing, car, or durable goods rental or lease entertainment: amusement parks, race tracks, for profit camps, record companies, movie theaters and producers, ski resorts, hotels, restaurants, etc. information processing consulting security and/or maintenance service other service (including accounting) other (including a business pension fund) unclear