This case comes to us for review of a decision of the Tax Court. 1 The income taxes here involved are for the tax years 1947, 1948, 1949 and 1950.

Reference should be had to the opinion and findings of the Tax Court which fully outline the pertinent and basic facts in the instant case and provide a clear picture of the problem before this Court. The parties stipulated (among other matters) to certain facts which were also found by the Tax Court and included in its findings by reference thereto. In this stipulation of facts the parties agreed that the single issue presented (in all of the series of six cases) is the right of the taxpayers to the benefit of section 117 (k) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 117 (k), in computing the income of the partnership of McKay and Carien, and in computing the tax liability of these partners for each of the years herein involved. It was also stipulated that section 117(k) (1) and (2) of the Internal Revenue Code is the controlling section here involved and that the applicable regulations are Regulations 111, Section 29.117-8; also that the taxpay- *339 era elected in their respective income tax returns and in the partnership income tax returns for the years involved to report their gain on the sale of timber under section 117 (k).

From the Findings of Fact of the Tax Court it appears that on March 15, 1945, Rayonier Incorporated and Neuskah Timber Company 2 entered into a contract by the terms of which Neuskah purchased from Rayonier all of the merchantable cedar and spruce timber and certain hemlock located on tracts described in the contract and owned by Rayonier.

On April 23, 1945, Neuskah entered into a contract with the McKay and Carien partnership for cutting part of the spruce and cedar included in the Rayonier-Neuskah contract. This contract is set out in extenso in the Findings of Fact of the Tax Court.

On November 1, 1946, August 15, 1948, and October 25, 1948, Rayonier and E. K. Bishop Lumber Company entered into additional contracts similar in material respects to the contract between Neuskah and Rayonier. At the time these additional contracts were entered into E. K. Bishop Lumber Company immediately entered into an agreement with McKay and Carien for the logging of the areas described in the contracts between Rayonier and Bishop. (See footnote 2.) The agreements with McKay and Carien were oral and contemplated terms and conditions similar to those stated in the contract of April 23, 1945, between Neuskah and McKay and Carien.

The Tax Court found that in 1945 appellants Arthur R. McKay and John T. Carien formed an oral general partnership to engage in the logging and cutting of timber in Southwest Washington. During the period here involved this partnership was engaged in the trade or business of logging timber and was not engaged in the business of cutting timber for sale on its own account or for use in its business.

On this appeal appellee (Commissioner) poses the issue as follows:

Appellants state the controlling issue to be:

We are in agreement with the fuller statement of the controlling issue before the Tax Court which is stated in Judge Tietjens’ opinion as follows:

In our view the Commissioner correctly states, (in summarizing his arguments in his brief) the heart of the problem posed in the instant review proceeding.

The foregoing argument of the Commissioner finds approval in the decision of the Tax Court. It summarizes its views at page 578, of 20 T.C. of ’ its reported opinion in the following language :

Upon a careful consideration of the decision of Judge Tietjens we find no logical reason for disagreeing with the conclusions he there expressed. 3 The court’s findings of fact and general conclusions thereon reach into every area of the ease material to a proper disposition of the controlling issues posed at trial.

Since we conclude that the facts adduced at trial adequately support the decision of the Tax Court its judgment is affirmed.

. Reported at 20 T.C. 573 . Six separate but closely related tax cases were docketed in the Tax Court and there consolidated for trial. These six cases presented common questions which, when determined, wiE decide aE of these cases. For this reason the parties stipulated in this court that the pleadings in the instant ease concerning John T. and Haiga Carien (husband and wife) shall alone be printed as part of the printed transcript and that the pleadings in the five companion cases be considered as part of the printed record, and that the parties may refer to the pleadings in their respective briefs and oral argument.

The Tax Court points out in its Opinion that the question before it was one of first impression and that no decided cases were avaüable to serve as guide posts.

. Neuskah was a subsidiary of E. K. Bishop Lumber Company. On January 31, .1946, Neuskah assigned its contract with Rayonier to E. K. Bishop Lumber Company and thereafter McKay and Carien dealt with this assignee with regard to the contract. The assignment was approved by Rayonier.

. The decision of Judge Tietjens was reviewed by the Tax Court.