With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". applied and that the payments were not subject to income-tax withholding. Defendant now argues that the conditions governing the trust plan considered in the revenue ruling establish the baseline for the qualification of supplemental unemployment compensation benefits under § 3402(o). We cannot accept this argument. As an initial matter, the revenue ruling offers no analysis to explain why the plan conditions it recites are sufficient to take the payments in question outside the definition of “wages.” Clearly, such an explanation was called for, given, in particular, the expansive definition of the term “employment” that was announced by the Supreme Court’s decision, some ten years earlier, in Social Security Bd. v. Nierotko, 327 U.S. 358, 365-66, 66 S.Ct. 637, 90 L.Ed. 718 (1946) (<HOLDING>). Absent an explanation of its result, Rev.

A: holding that the right to control the means by which the work is accomplished is clearly the most significant test of the employment relationship and observing that many of the other factors enumerated in the restatement second are merely evidentiary indicia of the right to control
B: holding that where employee gave notice to employer of injury and employer told employee that nothing could be done for him through workmans compensation employer had breached statute and was liable for medical treatment which was reasonable and necessary to restore employee to maximum usefulness
C: holding that the term service as used in the social security acts definition of employment means not only work actually done but also the entire employeremployee relationship for which compensation is paid to the employee by the employer
D: holding that it is the claimants burden to show that the injury was the result of an accident that not only arose in the course of the employment but that it also grew out of or resulted from the employment
C.