In Wilkinson v. Citation Ins. Co., 447 Mass. 663, 856 N.E.2d 829 (2006), the Supreme Judicial Court decided whether car racing equipment was used for a business purpose where an identical business purpose exclusion was at issue. The owner was employed full-time in a different occupation, but engaged in car racing which produced income. Id. There, the insured participated in car races where he was sponsored and often received prize money; his racing funds were kept in a separate account, with the profits and losses from racing stated on his personal income tax return, but he treated the amounts within the hobby loss provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. Id. at 666. The policy only offered only the limited definition of the term, stating "'business' includes trade, profession or occupation." Id. at 667. In accordance with the common meaning of business, the court interpreted the phrase business purpose to mean "an activity engaged in for the purpose of gain or profit." Id. Ultimately, the court found that the insured's racing was not for the purpose of gain or profit, and therefore his claim was not barred under the business purpose provision.