that the sole proprietorship, which was engaged in the business of selling new fabricated homes, began operating at a loss in 2007 because of the collapse of the financial market. 4 . We note that the Virginia Workers’ Compensation Act ("the Act”) equates "wages” with "earnings," Bay Concrete Constr. Co. v. Davis, 43 Va.App. 528, 539, 600 S.E.2d 144, 150 (2004), but does not equate "wages” and "earnings” with "income,” B.P. Solar & Ace Am. Ins. Co. v. Jones, 49 Va.App. 322, 326-27, 641 S.E.2d 124, 126 (2007) (affirming the commission’s refusal to equate earnings with income, where claimant’s disability benefits were a form of income, but were not earnings as contemplated by Code § 65.2-712); see also Code § 65.2-101; Smith v. Smith, 32 Va.App. 242, 255, 527 S.E.2d 463, 470 (2000) (<HOLDING>). This Court has previously held that "wages,”
holding that documents that were not created by but that were received maintained and relied upon by a business are business records under  8036 holding that plaintiff could recover damages under both the lanham act and the copyright act because the profits awarded under the federal trademark statute constitute compensation rather than a penalty while statutory damages are awarded under the copyright act are designed to serve a variety of purposes other than compensation including deterrence and punishment holding that corporations real estate investment activity was part of its unitary business and thus its portfolio income was correctly included in its apportioned income holding a state cannot impose an income tax on indians whose income is solely from reservation sources recognizing that business profits while considered income were not earnings under the act