Not to add fuel to this fire or to give my good friend Nickel any credibility :) here regarding acknowledging that this is even an issue, but if there is anything to Nickel's latest Watergate scandal he's unearthed here about the 10% penalty on the flow-throughs, or even about the pay-back of said funds, wouldn't ISM have had to accrue on their Sept 30th 2008 financials some sort of current liability for their potential exposure on this? I know they have a future income tax liability calculated which is related to the renounciation, but there should have been a separate current liability calculated for the actual funds requiring payback, at least per generally accepted accounting principles, I would think. It sounds to me like Nickel, you should be calling ISM's auditors, and having a discussion with them on this, as they seem to be disagreeing with your take on this flow-through situation. Just my opinion.

I could also ask why you give a darn at all about this issue given you obviously are not a shareholder but I think we've all gone way past that point and concluded your motives here are what they are, and you will continue to press any and all ISM issues you think you may have found without regard to the consequences to yourself, and such is life.

BEER