by the fact that the second occurrence of the term “including” in § 902(13) is followed by the parenthetical “(but not limited to).” Both occurrences of the term “including” were added to § 902(13) in the 1984 amendments to the LHWCA, and it is illogical to assume that Congress intended both to be construed as “including but not limited to” but only chose to modify the second occurrence of the term with a parenthetical. Id. at 479. The court concluded that under § 902(13), “ ‘wages’ equals monetary compensation plus taxable advantages,” and therefore, the value of meals and lodging exempt from taxation under § 119 are not wages or taxable advantages and are excluded from the definition of wages. Id.; accord Wausau Ins. Cos. v. Director, OWCP, 114 F.3d 120, 121-22 (9th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). We subsequently interpreted the holding in
holding under indiana law that profits are not wages and neither is a fraction of profits wages and so a bonus that is based on the performance of a plant rather than on the time or determinable output of the employee is not wages either holding that lodging of a stationary engineer could not be deducted from wages because his residing at the complex was primarily for the benefit of the employer holding that the cost of lodging on the ship is not includable as wages for sleeping on the vessel was primarily for the benefit and convenience of the employer holding that the value of meals and lodging that are tax exempt under  119 is excluded from wages under the lhwca holding that the employer was not required to withhold or pay fica and futa taxes in 1971 with respect to the free meals it furnished its employees because the employer could not have told from the relevant statutes and regulations that the free meals were remuneration and thus wages