Case Name: Denise CLAYTON; Leann Harris, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-11-13
Citations: 253 F. App'x 282
Docket Number: No. 06-1976
Parties: Denise CLAYTON; Leann Harris, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 253
Pages: 282–283

Head Matter:
Denise CLAYTON; Leann Harris, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant—Appellee.
No. 06-1976.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 29, 2007.
Decided: Nov. 13, 2007.
Paul J. Harris, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellants. Sharon Lynn Potter, United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia; Eileen J. O’Connor, Assistant Attorney General, Kenneth L. Greene, Patrick J. Urda, Tax Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Denise Clayton and Leann Harris appeal the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the United States on them tax refund suit, 26 U.S.C. § 7422 (2000). At issue is whether the proceeds from the settlement of a suit involving an inter vivos trust are excludable as income received by inheritance, 26 U.S.C. § 102(a) (2000), or as damages received on account of personal physical injuries or physical sickness within the meaning of 26 U.S.C. § 104(a)(2) (2000). We have reviewed the record included on appeal as well as the parties' briefs, and have found no reversible error. We note that the case relied upon by the Appellants in them brief, Murphy v. IRS, 460 F.3d 79 (D.C.Cir.2006), was vacated on rehearing. See Murphy v. IRS, 493 F.3d 170 (D.C.Cir.2007). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Clayton v. United States, No. 5:04-cv-00143-FPS, 2006 WL 2167061 (N.D.W.Va. July 31, 2006). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.