opinion: The TAYLOR-WINFIELD CORPORATION, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
  No. 72-1409.
  United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
  Oct. 24, 1972.
  John C. Klotsche, Chicago, 111., for petitioner-appellant; Thomas M. Hader-lein, Chicago, 111., on brief; Baker & McKenzie, Chicago, 111., of counsel.
  Charles E. Anderson, Atty., Tax Div., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., for respondent-appellee; Scott P. Crampton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Richard W. Perkins and Meyer Rothwacks, Attys., Tax Div., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., on brief.
  Before EDWARDS and MILLER, Circuit Judges, and BRATCHER, District Judge.
  Honorable Rhodes Bratcher, United States District Judge for the Western District of Kentucky, sitting by designation.
  ORDER
  On consideration of the briefs of the parties and the files and records in this case; and
  Finding that the appellate issues have been fully and accurately dealt with by the opinion of the Tax Court, 57 T.C. 205 (November 8, 1971),
  The decisions of the Tax Court are affirmed for the reasons set forth in the Tax Court opinion just cited.
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