Following up on last week’s post on Marrita Murphy’s Petition for Rehearing En Banc in the D.C. Circuit, requesting that the full court review the three-judge panel’s July 3, 2007 decision in Murphy v. IRS, No. 03cv02414, which upheld the taxation of Mrs. Murphy’s compensatory personal injury award (and rejected the panel’s original decision in Murphy v. IRS, 460 F.3d 79 (D.C. Cir. 8/22/06):  National Law Journal:  D.C. Circuit Asked to Rule on Whistleblower Tax Issue, by Marcia Coyle:

"This case marks the first time that a court has interpreted the gross ‘income’ statute, § 61(a), to be amended ‘by implication’ to create a tax not expressly enacted by Congress," said Murphy’s counsel, David K. Colapinto of the National Whistleblower Center. That is contrary to Supreme Court and other courts’ precedents which say a tax levying statute cannot be extended by implication, he said, and if there is doubt about the validity of a tax, all doubt is to be construed strongly in favor of the taxpayer and against the government. The government has not yet replied to the request for en banc review.