It’s not obvious that the CPA described in ratherbereading’s example violated a professional-conduct rule. Not knowing the scope of the CPA’s engagement, it’s possible—even if the employer paid wages for no work—that the CPA correctly performed her engagement.
Things have taken a dark turn. Let's turn back a bit. The IRS is unlikely to challenge compensation to an owner's wife of less than $30,000 as unreasonable even if the only work is "pillow talk advisory" in nature. But I agree, it sounds like an excess that must be corrected. Unless the last payroll was an error and it should be re-run in which case maybe it isn't an excess at all!