Late in the evening on April 30th 1995 veteran bicycle/foot courier Wayne Scott filed a unorthodox Federal Income Tax return. Scrawled in longhand across the neatly ordered government form was his request that a portion of his daily food and liquid consumption, be recognised as fuel. Mr. Scott estimated his job-related nutritional expenses at $11.00.

Mr. Scott appeared before the Tax Court on July 28, 1997. His Honour Judge D.H. Christie dismissed Mr. Scott's appeal on August 6, citing the dictates of the Income Tax Act.

The newspapers latched on to the story at this point and through this national exposure Mr. Scott's plight came to the attention of Daina Groskaufmanis, a tax expert with the legal firm of Torkin, Manes, Cohen & Arbus.

With their pro bono assistance, Mr. Scott challenged Judge Christie's decision before the Federal Court of Appeal, on June 5th, 1998. The three judge panel released its unanimous decision on July 23rd, upholding, in principle, Mr. Scott's argument.

In January of 1998, RevCan made a counter-offer to Mr. Scott of less than fifty cents on the dollar. Mr. Scott informed his legal representative that he intended to expose RevCan's insulting counter-offer to the media. Given the legal community's unwritten rule all pre-trial negotiations must remain confidential, Mr. Scott was forced to fire his lawyer, before going public.

Still, rather than immediately notifying the press, Mr. Scott contacted a number of Ottawa-based RevCan and Justice Department officials, and raised his concerns about the seemingly vindictive air with which their Toronto franchise was approaching the debate.

Three days after contacting the Attorney General's office, Mr. Scott received a second communiqué from the Justice Department's Toronto branch. They not only agreed to Mr. Scott's $11.00 daily fuel deduction, they subsequently apologised for any perceived animosity emanating from their camp.

The Tax Court hearing took place on March 8th of this year, again before Judge Christie. The elderly jurist directed a number of questions to Mr. Scott, aimed at pinning down the exact cost of the courier's fuel demands. Mr. Scott presented the court with a report from Dr. Carol Greenwood, an associate professor with the University of Toronto's Faculty of Medicine.

Eventually, Judge Christie stated that he was not there to watch Mr. Scott and the Crown engage in any further debate. The judge then banished them from his courtroom to conclude their discussions.

In an anteroom outside the court, the Crown suggested that if Mr. Scott did not immediately accept the Crown's offered settlement, they might be forced to re-evaluate the $11.00 figure, as overly generous.

Ailing, broke and unable to stomach another moment in the company of these contrived, hollow bureaucrats; Mr. Scott surrendered.

As for how this decision impacts upon other members of the profession is anyone's guess. Right now it depends on who you talk to at RevCan.

Bruce Allen, Appeals Division, Toronto (416) 954 - 3812 Mr. Allen says that all other eco-friendly couriers should re-file their tax returns individually.

Colette Gentes-Hawn, Press Spokesperson, Ottawa (613) 957 - 3522 Ms. Gentes-Hawn says no other couriers can re-file because they failed to file the formal Objection on time.

Bill Baker, Appeals Division, Ottawa (613) 957 - 2179 Mr. Baker didn't bother to get back to Mr. Scott last week, but he has the clout to make things happen.

While the government's intransigence has cost Mr. Scott his job, his health and thousands of dollars in time and expense; his personal loss pales when compared with the incredible waste of taxpayer's dollars that the Feds continue to invest in challenging Mr. Scott's simple request for so logical a deduction.