Matthew J. O'Connor (J.D. 2008, Indiana) has published Note, Finding the "Income" in "Income Tax": A Look at Murphy v. I.R.S. and an Attempt to Pick Up the Pieces of Glenshaw Glass. (Murphy v. I.R.S., 460 F.3d 79, 2006, rev'd, 493 F.3d 170, 2007.), 83 Ind. L.J. 1695 (2008).  Here is part of the Introduction:

Although the D.C. Circuit recently vacated Murphy I in July 2007,  the decision still evinces confusion about how courts should define income, confusion which remains important regardless of the subsequent decision in Murphy II. This Note argues that, irrespective of how the D.C. Circuit revisited its opinion, the flaws in its initial ruling have created confusion about how the Supreme Court defines income and how the Court views § 104, confusion that muddies the Supreme Court's opinion on the nature of income and that potentially inspires those who would attempt to exploit an unsettled definition of income.

This Note does not address the wisdom or validity of § 104(a)(2)'s exclusion of non-physical injuries from tax-exempt status; it addresses only the D.C. Circuit's argument that awards for non-physical injuries do not constitute “income” under the Sixteenth Amendment. Part I recounts Murphy I and explains its holding. Part II details the history of the creation of the income tax and how the Supreme Court has variously defined “income” under it. Part III details the history of § 104's personal injury exemption in its various forms throughout the decades, including its interpretation by the Treasury Department, the IRS, and the Supreme Court, and explains why Supreme Court decisions in this area are distinguishable from the D.C. Circuit's holding. Part IV explains how the D.C. Circuit's reasoning for holding § 104(a)(2) unconstitutional is wrong. The Note concludes by explaining why the D.C. Circuit's holding is important: because it has awakened irrelevant and unworkable definitions of “income,” because it has misread current Supreme Court case law pertaining to § 104, and because the D.C. Circuit's holding potentially opens the door to unnecessary litigation.