Noah wrote:Its not the employer/employee relationship but rather the type of employer and type of employee that may or may not generate wages. It is my understandng wages, as defined , can only be generated by certain specific employers/employees. All other employers/employees may or may not generate compensation for services.
You have it exactly 180 degrees backwards.
The Internal Revenue Code starts with the broadest possible definition of "wages" and then provides exclusions for certain specific types of payments, or certain types of employers, or certain types of employees, or some combination of payment, employer, and employee. So, for example, section 3401(a) defines "wages" as "all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) for services performed by an employee for his employer, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash; except that such term shall not include remuneration paid—" and then follows 22 numbered exceptions.
So which exception do you think Hendrickson thought applied to him? Was he doing agricultural work? Was he providing domestic service in a private home? Was he being paid for his services as a duly ordained minister?
Unless one of the exceptions applies, then the general rule is that "wages" means ALL compensation paid by an employer to an employee.
Hendrickson will be hanging his hat on his misreading of the section 3401(c) definition of "employer," and the government will need to prove that Hendrickson KNEW he was wrong about section 3401(c) at the time he filed his returns. And so, once again, it boils down to "willfulness."