>>>>>>But I read in your newsletter:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This proposal, if accepted, would then be retroactive.
>>>>>>... and ...
>>>>>>as they are proposing to reimburse Level Extreme to related paid amounts on the required amount as expressed on the March 4th, 2005 letter, as well as the related interests and the cancellation of the requested unpaid money.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It may be because of my English, but doesn't this imply that money is actually sent back to UT?
>>>>>
>>>>>This is not related to the imposed taxation since the ruling was done.
>>>>
>>>>I don't understand...
>>>
>>>Oh for God'ssakes Peter, let it lie and leave the man in peace!
>>
>>Tell me Terry, what's bothering you.
>
>I've got this feeling that we'll have one of these niggling threads going on for ages, badgering the poor guy, who's p[robably got other stuff to deal with. You've said you don't want any reimbursement (emphatically) yet you're like a terrier worrying a rag.
>
>Then again, maybe I'm too sensitive? :-

Yes Terry, you're obviously too sensitive here. :)

My stance in the issue is clear from the start: I won't ask back any money and I also ask others to not ask. However, I am wondering what the formal position of the non-resident payers is like. Since the moment that UT published the news letter there has been ample interest here. I came here two days later and noticed that there had been not a single request for additional information posted. This is curious because it has been a major issue in the past.