opinion: Matter of AIRLINE-ARISTA PRINTING CORP., Bankrupt.
  No. 260, Docket 25012.
  United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
  Argued May 11, 1959.
  Decided June 1,1959.
  Ridgway, Ridgway, & Slote, New York City, John G. Crowe, New York City, of counsel, for appellant.
  Arthur H. Christy, U. S. Atty., New York City, William F. Suglia and Arthur V. Savage, Asst. U. S. Attys., New York City, of counsel, for appellee.
  Before SWAN, HINCKS, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.
  PER CURIAM.
  On May 26, 1954 Airline-Arista Printing Corp. filed a petition for arrangement under Chapter XI of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 701 et seq. The debtor was continued in possession and transacted business until September 17, 1954 when it was adjudicated bankrupt. While the debtor continued in possession, it withheld $291.41 for taxes withheld from wages of employees but did not segregate the sums so withheld, although ordered to do so by the referee in bankruptcy. The trustee’s final report shows assets of only $544.44. Of this amount the United States claims $291.41 under § 3661 of the 1939 Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 3661, now § 7501 of the Code of 1954, 26 U.S.C.A. § 7501. Under this court’s decision in City of New York v. Rassner, 127 F.2d 703, the Government is entitled to prevail. The trustee argued and the referee in bankruptcy agreed, that the 1952 amendment to § 64, sub. a(l) of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 104, sub. a(l), made the Rassner case inapplicable. Judge Bryan wrote a very lucid opinion, 156 F.Supp. 403, which overruled the referee. We agree. The order is affirmed on the opinion below.
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