opinion: The NEW YORK SUN, Inc., Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
  No. 267, Docket 24755.
  United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
  Argued March 5, 1958.
  Decided March 19, 1958.
  A. Harding Paul, Washington, D. C. (Donald C. Hays, and Walter S. Long, Jr., New York City, on the brief), for petitioner.
  Morton K. Rothschild, Atty., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C. (Charles K. Rice, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Lee A. Jackson and Harry Baum, Attys., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for respondent.
  Before LUMBARD, WATERMAN and MOORE, Circuit Judges.
  PER CURIAM.
  The question for decision is whether the taxpayer sustained in the year 1945 a deductible loss, under § 23(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, 26 U.S. C.A. § 23(f), of $650,000, the entire claimed value of its membership in the Associated Press, by reason of the decision of the Supreme Court rendered on June 18, 1945, Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1, 65 S.Ct. 1416, 89 L.Ed. 2013, and the resulting amendment of the by-laws of the Associated Press on November 18, 1945 to eliminate discriminatory provisions to open membership to all, even though the taxpayer continued the use of its membership.
  This precise issue has been decided adversely to the taxpayer by the Tenth Circuit in Reporter Pub. Co. v. Commissioner, 1953, 201 F.2d 743, certiorari denied, 1953, 345 U.S. 993, 73 S.Ct. 1133, 97 L.Ed. 1401, and we affirm for the reasons therein stated.
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