
    Michael ENRIGHT; Julie A. Enright, Petitioners-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 10-72643.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted: Feb. 21, 2012.
    
    Filed: Feb. 27, 2012.
    Michael Enright, pro se.
    Julie A. Enright, pro se.
    Patricia McDonald Bowman, Trial, John A. Dicicco, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Steven W. Parks, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, William J. Wilkins, Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, Robert R. Di Trolio, Esquire, Clerk, U.S. Tax Court, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Michael and Julie A. Enright appeal pro se from the Tax Court’s judgment concluding that a $57,500 payment that Julie En-right received under a settlement agreement was not excludable from their gross income. We have jurisdiction 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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     