In Byrne v. Commissioner, the Tax Court held that the taxpayer properly excluded disability retirement benefits from gross income under section 104(a)(1). Section 104(a)(1) excludes from gross income payments received under workmen’s compensation acts. Regulations promulgated under this section expand its reach to encompass “a statute in the nature of a workmen’s compensation act,” which provides compensation for personal injuries or sickness incurred in the course of employment. The Byrne court held that the California Judges’ Retirement Law is a dual-purpose statute designed to provide both retirement benefits and benefits in the nature of workmen’s compensation. Thus, the benefits were excludable under section 104(a)(1). This holding provides guidance to taxpayers planning retirement packages based on benefits derived from job-related disabilities.This Note focuses on Byrne’s place in the evolutionary path of the dual-purpose statute, which has been examined both under a functional analysis, via evaluation of the predecessor to section 104(a)(1), and under a more formalistic analysis in modern case law. Part I of the Note recounts the facts of Byrne. Part II explores the Tax Court’s application of section 104(a)(1) to those facts. Part III details Byrne’s place in section 104(a)(1) dual-purpose statute exclusion jurisprudence through examination of the guidance Byrne offers both to taxpayers and law makers. Finally, Part IV concludes by indicating Byrne’s place in the evolution of section 104(a)(1) jurisprudence.