90 F.3d at 692. Particularly persuasive was the following exchange between Senator Bentsen, then Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and Senator Rockefeller, a principal architect of the legislation: Mr. BENTSEN: That definition of [business activity] has alternative tests: a company is considered to be in business if it either conducts a business activity or “derives revenue from” a business activity. As is apparent from the existence of the two tests, the intention of the legislation is to define the term “in business” broadly. Even in eases where a company is not considered to conduct a business of its own, if the company has leased any of its property in return for the right to receive royalties based on the use of the property in a 9 F.Supp.2d 539, 553 (N.D.W.Va.2002) (<HOLDING>). As previously stated, the parties do not
holding that a company that generated revenue from the sale of its assets remained in business holding that where subchapter s corporations revenue was generated from professional accounting services of its sole shareholder or from personal services performed under him funds generated by the business which shareholder withdrew to pay personal expenses although not denominated wages for purposes of bookkeeping could be considered wages for purposes of calculating preinjury wage holding that the separate earlier sale of the defunct business tangible assets rendered the later sale of the trademark invalid holding that a company that derived revenue from leasing its property was in business for purposes for the coal act holding that where a company pays plan beneficiaries from its own assets its perpetual conflict with its profitmaking role as a business must shape  the application of the arbitrary and capricious standard