context: We acknowledge that the Court in Groetzinger "confined" its construction of the term "trade or business" to the statutory provision at issue in that case, and that the Court "[did] not purport to construe the phrase where it appears in other places."
citation_a.signal: but see
citation_a.identifier: 974 F.2d 889, 889-90
citation_a.parenthetical: declining to rely on Groetzinger because the term "trade or business" has different meanings " 'depending upon the [statutory] provision in which it is used' "
citation_a.sentence: But see Ditello, 974 F.2d at 889-90 (declining to rely on Groetzinger because the term “trade or business” has different meanings “ ‘depending upon the [statutory] provision in which it is used’ ”) (citation omitted).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 974 F.2d 794, 794
citation_b.parenthetical: "Although the Groetzinger court considered a provision of the tax code, we find its definition helpful in distinguishing trades or businesses [under ERISA] from purely personal activities or investments."
citation_b.sentence: See Personnel, 974 F.2d at 794 (“Although the Groetzinger court considered a provision of the tax code, we find its definition helpful in distinguishing trades or businesses [under ERISA] from purely personal activities or investments.”). Indeed, the parties have offered no better interpretation, and we can imagine none.