Case Name: Ellis M. BRYDIA and Thelma M. Brydia, Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1971-10-20
Citations: 450 F.2d 954
Docket Number: No. 19367
Parties: Ellis M. BRYDIA and Thelma M. Brydia, Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 450
Pages: 954–955

Head Matter:
Ellis M. BRYDIA and Thelma M. Brydia, Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.
No. 19367.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Argued Sept. 27,1971.
Decided Oct. 20, 1971.
Hastie, Circuit Judge, concurred in a separate opinion.
Peter J. Ressler, Nabors & Ressler, Harrisburg, Pa., for appellants.
Virginia M. Hopkins, Dept, of Justice, Tax Div., Washington, D. C. (Johnnie M. Walters, Asst. Atty. Gen., Meyer Rothwacks, Elmer J. Kelsey, Mary J. McGinn, Attys., Tax Div., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellee.
Before SEITZ, Chief Judge, HASTIE, Circuit Judge, and HERMAN, District Judge.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Ellis M. Brydia, in addition to his employment as a naval engineer, devoted substantial time and resources toward serving as a religious evangelist. For the tax years 1965 and 1966 appellant deducted from his income as a naval employee his expenses incurred during the course of his work as an unpaid evangelist. The Tax Court sustained the Commissioner's challenge to these deductions and the assessment of tax deficiencies reasoning that, in view of appellant's express disaffirmance of any profit motive in his work as an evangelist, such activities could not constitute a "trade or business" within the meaning of section 162, Internal Revenue Code of 1954. It therefore concluded that appellant was not entitled to deduct the expenses thereof from the income derived from his nonevangelical means of employment. Taxpayers appealed.
Although the results may seem unfortunate in some respects, we think the reasoning of the Tax Court, as set forth in T. C. Memo 1970-147, is a correct application of law to these facts. See Lamont v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 339 F.2d 377 (2d Cir. 1964). We are not concerned with the possible use of any of these expenses as charitable contributions.
The judgment of the Tax Court will be affirmed.
Thelma M. Brydia is a party by virtue of the joint returns filed by the appellants for the taxable years in issue.