MICHAEL ENRIGHT V. CIR, No. 10-72643 (9th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED FEB 27 2012 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MICHAEL ENRIGHT; JULIE A. ENRIGHT, No. 10-72643 Tax Ct. No. 27955-08 Petitioners - Appellants, MEMORANDUM * v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent - Appellee. 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 * 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). 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 10-72643
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
