Is it tax fraud for an individual to declare non-taxable revenue as taxable income? (US tax laws)US work...
Why does Kotter return in Welcome Back Kotter?
Why "Having chlorophyll without photosynthesis is actually very dangerous" and "like living with a bomb"?
Why is Minecraft giving an OpenGL error?
Codimension of non-flat locus
How does one intimidate enemies without having the capacity for violence?
Why can't I see bouncing of a switch on an oscilloscope?
What is a clear way to write a bar that has an extra beat?
Is it possible to run Internet Explorer on OS X El Capitan?
What is the word for reserving something for yourself before others do?
Fully-Firstable Anagram Sets
Why can't we play rap on piano?
What does the "remote control" for a QF-4 look like?
How is the claim "I am in New York only if I am in America" the same as "If I am in New York, then I am in America?
Could an aircraft fly or hover using only jets of compressed air?
Which country benefited the most from UN Security Council vetoes?
Replacing matching entries in one column of a file by another column from a different file
Does an object always see its latest internal state irrespective of thread?
How much of data wrangling is a data scientist's job?
Is it legal for company to use my work email to pretend I still work there?
How does quantile regression compare to logistic regression with the variable split at the quantile?
How can bays and straits be determined in a procedurally generated map?
Why doesn't H₄O²⁺ exist?
Today is the Center
NMaximize is not converging to a solution
Is it tax fraud for an individual to declare non-taxable revenue as taxable income? (US tax laws)
US work authorization laws for non-resident aliensIs lying/faking income for loans illegal?Can the cashier be held liable for credit card fraud if procedure isn't followed?When does the government charge for fraudCan an employer owe money for an employee's income tax?Promissory Note Versus Loan Agreement for Real Estate InvestmentIs it still consider Fraud if it is GIVEN for free?Is a disclaimer for a medical product enough to protect the company against prosecution for fraud?How to report Airbnb income in tax return?Is this a Prima Facie case for State Tax Fraud?
Hypothetically, A wants to pay B a considerable amount of money.
In order to reduce the paper trail, A pays me the money and I transfer it to B.
To further obscure the paper trail, I declare the payment from A as income for work (non-existent) done by me for A, enter it on my US Income Tax return as taxable income, and pay the resulting tax.
I have submitted a false tax return, but it leads to an increase in tax paid. Is it still a crime?
Edit: No money laundering. A legally possesses the money and has a perfectly legal (and very private) reason to pay it to B.
united-states fraud federal-tax-law
add a comment |
Hypothetically, A wants to pay B a considerable amount of money.
In order to reduce the paper trail, A pays me the money and I transfer it to B.
To further obscure the paper trail, I declare the payment from A as income for work (non-existent) done by me for A, enter it on my US Income Tax return as taxable income, and pay the resulting tax.
I have submitted a false tax return, but it leads to an increase in tax paid. Is it still a crime?
Edit: No money laundering. A legally possesses the money and has a perfectly legal (and very private) reason to pay it to B.
united-states fraud federal-tax-law
Money laundering is a different crime than tax fraud, but still a crime.
– SJuan76
8 hours ago
How do you know that your 20% tax bracket was greater than the tax bracket of person B? Either way this is a fraud against the US government. I would assume that they didn't want a paper trail because they have an outstanding debt like child support. Even if it wasn't money laundering it's still fraud.
– Ron Beyer
3 hours ago
What does B's tax bracket have to do with anything? It's my taxes, with or without the fake income, that is of concern...
– DJohnM
2 hours ago
Why is it crucial to your scenario that you not report the income as miscellaneous income on Schedule 1; why do you have to classify it as wages?
– user6726
1 hour ago
"A legally possesses the money and has a perfectly legal (and very private) reason to pay it to B." - That is not good enough. Just evading reporting requirements is already structuring, a form of laundering, even if there is no underlying crime.
– Kevin
13 mins ago
add a comment |
Hypothetically, A wants to pay B a considerable amount of money.
In order to reduce the paper trail, A pays me the money and I transfer it to B.
To further obscure the paper trail, I declare the payment from A as income for work (non-existent) done by me for A, enter it on my US Income Tax return as taxable income, and pay the resulting tax.
I have submitted a false tax return, but it leads to an increase in tax paid. Is it still a crime?
Edit: No money laundering. A legally possesses the money and has a perfectly legal (and very private) reason to pay it to B.
united-states fraud federal-tax-law
Hypothetically, A wants to pay B a considerable amount of money.
In order to reduce the paper trail, A pays me the money and I transfer it to B.
To further obscure the paper trail, I declare the payment from A as income for work (non-existent) done by me for A, enter it on my US Income Tax return as taxable income, and pay the resulting tax.
I have submitted a false tax return, but it leads to an increase in tax paid. Is it still a crime?
Edit: No money laundering. A legally possesses the money and has a perfectly legal (and very private) reason to pay it to B.
united-states fraud federal-tax-law
united-states fraud federal-tax-law
edited 3 hours ago
DJohnM
asked 8 hours ago
DJohnMDJohnM
375212
375212
Money laundering is a different crime than tax fraud, but still a crime.
– SJuan76
8 hours ago
How do you know that your 20% tax bracket was greater than the tax bracket of person B? Either way this is a fraud against the US government. I would assume that they didn't want a paper trail because they have an outstanding debt like child support. Even if it wasn't money laundering it's still fraud.
– Ron Beyer
3 hours ago
What does B's tax bracket have to do with anything? It's my taxes, with or without the fake income, that is of concern...
– DJohnM
2 hours ago
Why is it crucial to your scenario that you not report the income as miscellaneous income on Schedule 1; why do you have to classify it as wages?
– user6726
1 hour ago
"A legally possesses the money and has a perfectly legal (and very private) reason to pay it to B." - That is not good enough. Just evading reporting requirements is already structuring, a form of laundering, even if there is no underlying crime.
– Kevin
13 mins ago
add a comment |
Money laundering is a different crime than tax fraud, but still a crime.
– SJuan76
8 hours ago
How do you know that your 20% tax bracket was greater than the tax bracket of person B? Either way this is a fraud against the US government. I would assume that they didn't want a paper trail because they have an outstanding debt like child support. Even if it wasn't money laundering it's still fraud.
– Ron Beyer
3 hours ago
What does B's tax bracket have to do with anything? It's my taxes, with or without the fake income, that is of concern...
– DJohnM
2 hours ago
Why is it crucial to your scenario that you not report the income as miscellaneous income on Schedule 1; why do you have to classify it as wages?
– user6726
1 hour ago
"A legally possesses the money and has a perfectly legal (and very private) reason to pay it to B." - That is not good enough. Just evading reporting requirements is already structuring, a form of laundering, even if there is no underlying crime.
– Kevin
13 mins ago
Money laundering is a different crime than tax fraud, but still a crime.
– SJuan76
8 hours ago
Money laundering is a different crime than tax fraud, but still a crime.
– SJuan76
8 hours ago
How do you know that your 20% tax bracket was greater than the tax bracket of person B? Either way this is a fraud against the US government. I would assume that they didn't want a paper trail because they have an outstanding debt like child support. Even if it wasn't money laundering it's still fraud.
– Ron Beyer
3 hours ago
How do you know that your 20% tax bracket was greater than the tax bracket of person B? Either way this is a fraud against the US government. I would assume that they didn't want a paper trail because they have an outstanding debt like child support. Even if it wasn't money laundering it's still fraud.
– Ron Beyer
3 hours ago
What does B's tax bracket have to do with anything? It's my taxes, with or without the fake income, that is of concern...
– DJohnM
2 hours ago
What does B's tax bracket have to do with anything? It's my taxes, with or without the fake income, that is of concern...
– DJohnM
2 hours ago
Why is it crucial to your scenario that you not report the income as miscellaneous income on Schedule 1; why do you have to classify it as wages?
– user6726
1 hour ago
Why is it crucial to your scenario that you not report the income as miscellaneous income on Schedule 1; why do you have to classify it as wages?
– user6726
1 hour ago
"A legally possesses the money and has a perfectly legal (and very private) reason to pay it to B." - That is not good enough. Just evading reporting requirements is already structuring, a form of laundering, even if there is no underlying crime.
– Kevin
13 mins ago
"A legally possesses the money and has a perfectly legal (and very private) reason to pay it to B." - That is not good enough. Just evading reporting requirements is already structuring, a form of laundering, even if there is no underlying crime.
– Kevin
13 mins ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
The primary crime that you have described is called money laundering.
There are also multiple tax related crimes that could be implicated, not all of which require that taxes due by the person charged by reduced. See, e.g., Conspiracy to Defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. § 371); Attempts To Interfere With Administration of Internal Revenue Laws (I.R.C. § 7212); Fraudulent Returns, Statements or Other Documents (I.R.C. § 7207); Identity Theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7)), etc.
add a comment |
Did you misreport your income, now? How do you determine that?
You received income from A. You did a service for A. You may have wildly overcharged, (or did you? You had expenses).
IRS is concerned with the Step Doctrine. If doing something in one step is illegal, and you do several steps that have the same effect, then the steps are illegal.
You are assuring us that the single step is legal, so the steps are legal.
Examples.
You're allowed to donate $2800 to a candidate's primary election. You give $2800 to a friend for him to donate to that same candidate. The "step doctrine" says that's the same as you giving $5600, and you are over limits!
You get $1,000,000 cash selling meth. It would be illegal to deposit the whole lump without explaining the source. So you deposit $5000/day (structuring) or buy a car wash and sell washes to phantom customers (laundering).
Here's the exception that proves the rule. Your income is too high to be eligible to contribute to a Roth IRA. You contribute $5000 to a NDIRA (no income limits). You immediately convert the NDIRA to a Roth (Income limits were removed in 2005). That was long thought to be illegal because of the Step Doctrine, but IRS and Congress have stated that it's OK.
add a comment |
I have submitted a false tax return
Provided it really is false, you violate 18 USC 1001:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be [sentenced in various ways]
It's "material" because it impacts the amount of tax you owe. The fact that it is detrimental to you is entirely irrelevant. Also, the exceptions in sections (b) and (c) are clearly inapplicable here, as neither applies to executive branch "matters" at all.
(There are numerous more specific laws that you probably also violated. I just wanted to ensure that it's abundantly clear that lying on your tax return is illegal, by some law or another, in almost any scenario you can imagine.)
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "617"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38852%2fis-it-tax-fraud-for-an-individual-to-declare-non-taxable-revenue-as-taxable-inco%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The primary crime that you have described is called money laundering.
There are also multiple tax related crimes that could be implicated, not all of which require that taxes due by the person charged by reduced. See, e.g., Conspiracy to Defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. § 371); Attempts To Interfere With Administration of Internal Revenue Laws (I.R.C. § 7212); Fraudulent Returns, Statements or Other Documents (I.R.C. § 7207); Identity Theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7)), etc.
add a comment |
The primary crime that you have described is called money laundering.
There are also multiple tax related crimes that could be implicated, not all of which require that taxes due by the person charged by reduced. See, e.g., Conspiracy to Defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. § 371); Attempts To Interfere With Administration of Internal Revenue Laws (I.R.C. § 7212); Fraudulent Returns, Statements or Other Documents (I.R.C. § 7207); Identity Theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7)), etc.
add a comment |
The primary crime that you have described is called money laundering.
There are also multiple tax related crimes that could be implicated, not all of which require that taxes due by the person charged by reduced. See, e.g., Conspiracy to Defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. § 371); Attempts To Interfere With Administration of Internal Revenue Laws (I.R.C. § 7212); Fraudulent Returns, Statements or Other Documents (I.R.C. § 7207); Identity Theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7)), etc.
The primary crime that you have described is called money laundering.
There are also multiple tax related crimes that could be implicated, not all of which require that taxes due by the person charged by reduced. See, e.g., Conspiracy to Defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. § 371); Attempts To Interfere With Administration of Internal Revenue Laws (I.R.C. § 7212); Fraudulent Returns, Statements or Other Documents (I.R.C. § 7207); Identity Theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7)), etc.
answered 8 hours ago
ohwillekeohwilleke
52k259131
52k259131
add a comment |
add a comment |
Did you misreport your income, now? How do you determine that?
You received income from A. You did a service for A. You may have wildly overcharged, (or did you? You had expenses).
IRS is concerned with the Step Doctrine. If doing something in one step is illegal, and you do several steps that have the same effect, then the steps are illegal.
You are assuring us that the single step is legal, so the steps are legal.
Examples.
You're allowed to donate $2800 to a candidate's primary election. You give $2800 to a friend for him to donate to that same candidate. The "step doctrine" says that's the same as you giving $5600, and you are over limits!
You get $1,000,000 cash selling meth. It would be illegal to deposit the whole lump without explaining the source. So you deposit $5000/day (structuring) or buy a car wash and sell washes to phantom customers (laundering).
Here's the exception that proves the rule. Your income is too high to be eligible to contribute to a Roth IRA. You contribute $5000 to a NDIRA (no income limits). You immediately convert the NDIRA to a Roth (Income limits were removed in 2005). That was long thought to be illegal because of the Step Doctrine, but IRS and Congress have stated that it's OK.
add a comment |
Did you misreport your income, now? How do you determine that?
You received income from A. You did a service for A. You may have wildly overcharged, (or did you? You had expenses).
IRS is concerned with the Step Doctrine. If doing something in one step is illegal, and you do several steps that have the same effect, then the steps are illegal.
You are assuring us that the single step is legal, so the steps are legal.
Examples.
You're allowed to donate $2800 to a candidate's primary election. You give $2800 to a friend for him to donate to that same candidate. The "step doctrine" says that's the same as you giving $5600, and you are over limits!
You get $1,000,000 cash selling meth. It would be illegal to deposit the whole lump without explaining the source. So you deposit $5000/day (structuring) or buy a car wash and sell washes to phantom customers (laundering).
Here's the exception that proves the rule. Your income is too high to be eligible to contribute to a Roth IRA. You contribute $5000 to a NDIRA (no income limits). You immediately convert the NDIRA to a Roth (Income limits were removed in 2005). That was long thought to be illegal because of the Step Doctrine, but IRS and Congress have stated that it's OK.
add a comment |
Did you misreport your income, now? How do you determine that?
You received income from A. You did a service for A. You may have wildly overcharged, (or did you? You had expenses).
IRS is concerned with the Step Doctrine. If doing something in one step is illegal, and you do several steps that have the same effect, then the steps are illegal.
You are assuring us that the single step is legal, so the steps are legal.
Examples.
You're allowed to donate $2800 to a candidate's primary election. You give $2800 to a friend for him to donate to that same candidate. The "step doctrine" says that's the same as you giving $5600, and you are over limits!
You get $1,000,000 cash selling meth. It would be illegal to deposit the whole lump without explaining the source. So you deposit $5000/day (structuring) or buy a car wash and sell washes to phantom customers (laundering).
Here's the exception that proves the rule. Your income is too high to be eligible to contribute to a Roth IRA. You contribute $5000 to a NDIRA (no income limits). You immediately convert the NDIRA to a Roth (Income limits were removed in 2005). That was long thought to be illegal because of the Step Doctrine, but IRS and Congress have stated that it's OK.
Did you misreport your income, now? How do you determine that?
You received income from A. You did a service for A. You may have wildly overcharged, (or did you? You had expenses).
IRS is concerned with the Step Doctrine. If doing something in one step is illegal, and you do several steps that have the same effect, then the steps are illegal.
You are assuring us that the single step is legal, so the steps are legal.
Examples.
You're allowed to donate $2800 to a candidate's primary election. You give $2800 to a friend for him to donate to that same candidate. The "step doctrine" says that's the same as you giving $5600, and you are over limits!
You get $1,000,000 cash selling meth. It would be illegal to deposit the whole lump without explaining the source. So you deposit $5000/day (structuring) or buy a car wash and sell washes to phantom customers (laundering).
Here's the exception that proves the rule. Your income is too high to be eligible to contribute to a Roth IRA. You contribute $5000 to a NDIRA (no income limits). You immediately convert the NDIRA to a Roth (Income limits were removed in 2005). That was long thought to be illegal because of the Step Doctrine, but IRS and Congress have stated that it's OK.
edited 1 hour ago
answered 2 hours ago
HarperHarper
3,0141215
3,0141215
add a comment |
add a comment |
I have submitted a false tax return
Provided it really is false, you violate 18 USC 1001:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be [sentenced in various ways]
It's "material" because it impacts the amount of tax you owe. The fact that it is detrimental to you is entirely irrelevant. Also, the exceptions in sections (b) and (c) are clearly inapplicable here, as neither applies to executive branch "matters" at all.
(There are numerous more specific laws that you probably also violated. I just wanted to ensure that it's abundantly clear that lying on your tax return is illegal, by some law or another, in almost any scenario you can imagine.)
add a comment |
I have submitted a false tax return
Provided it really is false, you violate 18 USC 1001:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be [sentenced in various ways]
It's "material" because it impacts the amount of tax you owe. The fact that it is detrimental to you is entirely irrelevant. Also, the exceptions in sections (b) and (c) are clearly inapplicable here, as neither applies to executive branch "matters" at all.
(There are numerous more specific laws that you probably also violated. I just wanted to ensure that it's abundantly clear that lying on your tax return is illegal, by some law or another, in almost any scenario you can imagine.)
add a comment |
I have submitted a false tax return
Provided it really is false, you violate 18 USC 1001:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be [sentenced in various ways]
It's "material" because it impacts the amount of tax you owe. The fact that it is detrimental to you is entirely irrelevant. Also, the exceptions in sections (b) and (c) are clearly inapplicable here, as neither applies to executive branch "matters" at all.
(There are numerous more specific laws that you probably also violated. I just wanted to ensure that it's abundantly clear that lying on your tax return is illegal, by some law or another, in almost any scenario you can imagine.)
I have submitted a false tax return
Provided it really is false, you violate 18 USC 1001:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be [sentenced in various ways]
It's "material" because it impacts the amount of tax you owe. The fact that it is detrimental to you is entirely irrelevant. Also, the exceptions in sections (b) and (c) are clearly inapplicable here, as neither applies to executive branch "matters" at all.
(There are numerous more specific laws that you probably also violated. I just wanted to ensure that it's abundantly clear that lying on your tax return is illegal, by some law or another, in almost any scenario you can imagine.)
edited 1 min ago
answered 6 mins ago
KevinKevin
322113
322113
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Law Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38852%2fis-it-tax-fraud-for-an-individual-to-declare-non-taxable-revenue-as-taxable-inco%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Money laundering is a different crime than tax fraud, but still a crime.
– SJuan76
8 hours ago
How do you know that your 20% tax bracket was greater than the tax bracket of person B? Either way this is a fraud against the US government. I would assume that they didn't want a paper trail because they have an outstanding debt like child support. Even if it wasn't money laundering it's still fraud.
– Ron Beyer
3 hours ago
What does B's tax bracket have to do with anything? It's my taxes, with or without the fake income, that is of concern...
– DJohnM
2 hours ago
Why is it crucial to your scenario that you not report the income as miscellaneous income on Schedule 1; why do you have to classify it as wages?
– user6726
1 hour ago
"A legally possesses the money and has a perfectly legal (and very private) reason to pay it to B." - That is not good enough. Just evading reporting requirements is already structuring, a form of laundering, even if there is no underlying crime.
– Kevin
13 mins ago