■ This case was heard upon the record,, briefs and oral argument of counsel for1 respective parties;

And it appearing to the Court that the basic material facts are not in dispute between the parties; that the finding of the Tax Court that the payment to the taxpayer herein involved was income rather than part of the purchase price for the-sale of a capital asset in that there was no intent on the part of the taxpayer to> sell the seven patents involved herein to the Consolidated Aircraft Corporation for a purchase price of $115,000, as contended' by the taxpayer, is a factual inference be reasonably drawn from the facts; and that such a factual inference based on. evidence which permits conflicting inferences is to be accepted by this Court on review; Helvering v. F. & R. Lazarus &. Co., 308 U.S. 252, 60 S.Ct. 209, 84 L.Ed. 226; Wilmington Trust Co. v. Helvering, 316 U.S. 164, 168, 62 S.Ct. 984, 86 L.Ed. 1352; Commissioner v. Flowers, 326 U.S., 465, 470, 66 S.Ct. 250, 90 L.Ed. 203;

And it being settled law that in the: field of taxation the courts are concerned: *855 with substance and realities and that formal written documents are not rigidly binding; Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111, 50 S.Ct. 241, 74 L.Ed. 731; Helvering v. F. & R. Lazarus & Co., supra; Griffiths v. Helvering, 308 U.S. 355, 60 S.Ct. 277, 84 L.Ed. 319;

It is ordered that the judgment of the Tax Court be and is affirmed. William B. Stout, 18 T.C.Mem. 851. See Blum v. Commissioner, 3 Cir., 183 F.2d 281.