Michael Enright; Julie A. Enright v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL ENRIGHT; JULIE A.
ENRIGHT,
Petitioners - Appellants,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 10-72643
Tax Ct. No. 27955-08
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from a Decision of the
United States Tax Court
Submitted February 21, 2012**
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Michael and Julie A. Enright appeal pro se from the Tax Court’s judgment
concluding that a $57,500 payment that Julie Enright received under a settlement
agreement was not excludable from their gross income. We have jurisdiction
FILED
FEB 27 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-72643 2
under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo the Tax Court’s conclusions of
law and for clear error its findings of fact, Rivera v. Baker West, Inc., 430 F.3d
1253, 1256 (9th Cir. 2005), and we affirm.
The Tax Court properly concluded that the settlement was not excludable
from the Enrights’ gross income because neither the settlement agreement nor the
facts and circumstances of the case suggested that the settlement was based on any
physical injury or physical sickness. See 26 U.S.C. § 104(a)(2) (exempting a
settlement payment based on personal physical injuries or physical sickness from
taxation, but not treating emotional distress as a physical injury or physical
sickness); Rivera, 430 F.3d at 1257 (to determine whether a settlement is based on
physical injury or physical sickness, courts consider the settlement agreement and
the facts and circumstances of the case).
The Enrights’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --