Lester E. Braddock, Administrator (Now Personal Representative) of the Estate of Helen M. Braddock, Deceased v. United States

Appellant commenced this action in district court for recovery of income taxes paid. The district court directed a verdict for the United States after presentation of evidence and argument. We affirm.

It is the duty of a judge to direct a verdict when the evidence would be insufficient to support a different finding. Independent Iron Works, Inc. v. United States Steel Corp., 322 F.2d 656, 661 (9th Cir. 1963). Our inquiry, therefore, is whether there was sufficient evidence to present a jury question. Union Pacific R. R. v. Jarrett, 381 F.2d 597, 599 (9th Cir. 1967).

The government contends that the money received by appellant is includible in gross income under 26 U.S.C. § 61 , which defines gross income as “all income from whatever source derived, -x- -x-»

Appellant, however, claims that the money received was not includible under 26 U.S.C. § 102 , which provides:

At the outset, we note that it is immaterial that appellant received the money by reason of a compromise settlement. It is the nature of the underlying claim which governs. Thompson v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 406 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1969); Spangler v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 323 F.2d 913,…