Canada - Barry, 75, & Honey Sherman, 70, found dead, Toronto, 15 Dec 2017 #13

[InspectorLoneRanger]

1. If what KD is seeking is only to see the Wills and the listings of executors and beneficiaries, and all of these things have already been published for the most part (according to 'sources'), and KD doesn't seek to discover how exactly the Wills were distributed and to whom in which amounts, then what is the family arguing against that is so private and confidential that it could be dangerous for the beneficiaries that they are willing to pay the expense to take it all the way to the SCC?

2. The wealth of the Shermans has been stated as being anywhere from 3 billion to 7 billion CAD or USD, depending which reports you're reading, so how would one figure the capital gains would be 10 billion, when capital gains tax is only a percentage of the gain?
(Bernard (Barry) Sherman | December 2017, 75
Canada, $3 bil | pharmaceuticals
From The World's Richest Woman To A Strangled Mogul: The Billionaires Who Died In The Last Year)

3. Isn't it possible that Barry's financial advisors advised him at some point in the past to pay the capital gains tax up to a certain level/point in time, so as to lessen the tax impact in the event of death or sale?

Respectfully,

2. I'm not saying the Tax owning would be 10 Billion. I'm saying that the valuation of of Apotex IMO is 10 Billion. It's that's the case because Barry started it with 300,000 the capital gain is 10 Billion - $300,000 X 50% X 50% = 2.5 Billion. (The actual value of Apoxtex will be determined when it is sold).

You have to pay tax on the actual market value and not "I think it's worth $5 bucks valuation methodology".

When my parents passed away I settled their estate which included a 1 million cottage. I initially guesstimated the value and paid Capital gains tax of $250K, but when the cottage sold 1 year later it went for 1.4 million thus I had to file an amendment and pay an additional tax of $400,000 X 50% X 50% = $100,000

3. It would be imprudent(foolish) for Barry crystalize the Asset Cost Base. It would have the effect of draining Cash/Equity from his operation. Not following that advice is like an interest-free bank loan. Let's say Barry took that advice 10 years ago and paid the CRA 1 Billion dollars. If he didn't follow that advice he could take those 1 billion dollars he didn't give the CRA and invest it in TBills, or Government Bonds, or Bank Stock with a Covered Calls. He could then use the gain from that investment to pay off the tax owing. NOT following that advice is the path Barry followed. He kept the Billion dollars within Apotex thereby investing it within Apotex and in essence "Betting on Himself" Again what if Barry had taken that sound advice. Paid 1 Billion in Tax for the gain in Apoxtex but then 10 years later government policy changes or a cheaper competitor enters the market and Apotex goes Bankrupt. Then Barry has paid 1 Billion in Tax for a company that is worthless which means he essentially flushed a billion dollars down the toilet.

I hope this helps.

 

[rickcross]

I think he wanted to stay out of jail and avoid the all you can eat non-kosher Weiner buffet. It's really other members of the family that have taken the big steps to decry the m/s theory. Crazy Jon has refused to speak with media and has refused to be questioned by police as has his ex-boyfriend Adam Paulin.

BBM, do you have links to prove this statement?

 

[ldlager]

I respect your opinion but there there is no such tax maneuver where you can freeze an estate and defer capital gains until future generations sell or die. That would be tax avoidance rather than tax deferral and the consequences are draconian. Up to 100% penalty

There is an estate planning maneuver where you can sell the shares to a related party (family trust) at fair market and settle with taxman. (Frank Stronach family did this maneuver and they are in court over it now.)

The evidence is that Barry did not engage in this maneuver as Kerry Winter is suing the Estate of Barry Sherman where Barry's ownership stake of Apotex is now held.

With respect, an estate freeze/S85.1 rollover is a common tool used to defer the realization of capital gains in exactly these sorts of situations. The person creating the estate freeze crystalizes the value of their common shares at the date of the transaction; transfers the common shares to the beneficiaries (presumably the children in this example), and takes back another form of shares (e.g. voting preferred shares). The common shares are transferred tax free to the children at the time of the estate freeze. and the common shares the acquire have an adjusted cost base equal to their FMV at that date. All future increases in the value of the company (represented by the common shares) accrue to the common shareholders, and are not taxed (for capital gains purposes) until these shares are disposed of, and the FMV of the shares are determined at that time.

I believe Barry may have in fact completed an estate freeze some time ago, and thereby created the situation where his beneficiaries are in fact common shareholders of Apotex. This would explain JS referring to his siblings as "fellow shareholders".

I have been involved in many of these estate freeze and similar type transactions over the course of my professional career- including the one you cite above.

 

[ldlager]

Respectfully,

2. I'm not saying the Tax owning would be 10 Billion. I'm saying that the valuation of of Apotex IMO is 10 Billion. It's that's the case because Barry started it with 300,000 the capital gain is 10 Billion - $300,000 X 50% X 50% = 2.5 Billion. (The actual value of Apoxtex will be determined when it is sold).

You have to pay tax on the actual market value and not "I think it's worth $5 bucks valuation methodology".

When my parents passed away I settled their estate which included a 1 million cottage. I initially guesstimated the value and paid Capital gains tax of $250K, but when the cottage sold 1 year later it went for 1.4 million thus I had to file an amendment and pay an additional tax of $400,000 X 50% X 50% = $100,000

3. It would be imprudent(foolish) for Barry crystalize the Asset Cost Base. It would have the effect of draining Cash/Equity from his operation. Not following that advice is like an interest-free bank loan. Let's say Barry took that advice 10 years ago and paid the CRA 1 Billion dollars. If he didn't follow that advice he could take those 1 billion dollars he didn't give the CRA and invest it in TBills, or Government Bonds, or Bank Stock with a Covered Calls. He could then use the gain from that investment to pay off the tax owing. NOT following that advice is the path Barry followed. He kept the Billion dollars within Apotex thereby investing it within Apotex and in essence "Betting on Himself" Again what if Barry had taken that sound advice. Paid 1 Billion in Tax for the gain in Apoxtex but then 10 years later government policy changes or a cheaper competitor enters the market and Apotex goes Bankrupt. Then Barry has paid 1 Billion in Tax for a company that is worthless which means he essentially flushed a billion dollars down the toilet.

I hope this helps.

 

[Lexiintoronto]

I think we are saying the same thing. Yes, after a divorce you can change your will. But if you change your will and die before the divorce then the divorce would not be finalized and thus the will would be invalid and would be set aside as per the rules of Ontario civil procedure.

This was prior to a divorce, divorces can take years to finalize. If you separate and do not jointly own anything together you can update your will and exclude the spouse.

 

[InspectorLoneRanger]

This was prior to a divorce, divorces can take years to finalize. If you separate and do not jointly own anything together you can update your will and exclude the spouse.

I understand but please note that "Married Spouses Have Family Law Election Rights". Family Law election rights Trump Wills.
1. Married Spouses Have Family Law Election Rights

Ontario married spouses have specific rights to inherit and share in property. They also have a right to support. There is a deadline for filing an election under the Family Law Act.

A marriage contract can specify what happens when a married spouse dies. If there is no contract, the survivor may elect to claim against the deceased spouse’s estate.

This married spouse’s claim entitles the survivor to elect. The survivor may elect to receive one of the following:

a) what they would have received if they filed for divorce prior to the spouse’s death; or
b) what they are entitled to receive if the deceased died without will.
c) what gifts the surviving spouse is to receive under the will.

I dealt with a case where a man passed away who was married but separated for 20 years, he had a new common-law relationship for 7 years and he had a will. On his demise, his separated wife made a claim to inherit and share in his property and a claim for support. Despite the 20 year separation, and the existence of a common-law partner she was victorious given the law was on her side.

So I agree with your part of your assertion that you can draw up a new will but until the divorce is finalized the spouse has rights in Ontario under the Family Law Act that will Trump the will. They can make a claim on both the assets as well as support. On a side note she also applied for CPP survivor as was successful on that front as well.

 

[InspectorLoneRanger]

BBM, do you have links to prove this statement?

It's in Donovan's book. Here's some additional links.
PressReader.com - Your favorite newspapers and magazines.
https://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca...ent-strategy-and-business-competence-sources/
Barry and Honey Sherman murder case: Police have working theory and ‘an idea of what happened’

I wish Donovan has provided a complete list of sample questions he asked everyone in his book. He did state that he asked everyone the same/similar questions including "Where were you on the night on Dec 13th?" Given the questions were similar I find Jon's assertion that the questions to be misleading ludicrous (as in crazy not the rapper).

Greenspan is an excellent Lawyer. No way would he allow Jon to speak to the police/media.
Jon has been free to enjoy his life and travel in/out of Canada. Last year he went to Israel.
I just supported Masa Kumta - Beret March

In the Star's attempt to learn about the earlier financial dispute between father and son, we reached out to Jonathon, both directly and through his lawyer, Brian Greenspan. As part of a back and forth exchange over the past six weeks, the Star sent 31 questions to Jonathon on May 10, ranging from questions about the dispute with his father to queries about his businesses. Some questions also dealt with the investigation of his parents' murders.

Greenspan, who represents the four Sherman children, responded that "Jonathon Sherman and his siblings have honoured the request of law enforcement that they not engage in interviews or discussions with non police agencies."

Instead, in a letter to the Star, Jonathon Sherman said he has prepared "comprehensive written responses" to each question posed by the Star and sent them to the Toronto police detectives who are investigating the murders.

"Although I believe that the Toronto Police have complete responses to all of Mr. Donovan's misleading questions, I will also arrange an interview with Detective (Brandon) Price at his earliest convenience to further elaborate on, and if necessary explain, the details which I have provided to him in response to the inquiries made on behalf of the Toronto Star," Sherman wrote.

Jonathon Sherman also said he cannot respond publicly to these questions because he "cannot interfere with the investigation." In previous correspondence nine months ago, Sherman told the Star he would meet and answer questions, but only if he was given the authority to edit or remove any information concerning him in what was going to be published. The Star declined the offer.

The email regarding Barry's competency, along with the 2015 email correspondence between Barry Sherman and his son, are in the hands of police, sources say.

In a letter to the Star, lawyer Brian Greenspan suggested that information the Star has seen reflects "a reliance upon information which we believe came into the possession of your so-called sources unlawfully."

TheSherman case is cloaked in mystery, with judicial sealing orders on both police investigation documents and the estate files of the late Barry and Honey Sherman. In a recent story, the Star revealed that Sherman, who had already gifted more than $150 million to charity, was contemplating making additional donations, as well as provide his wife Honey with a substantial financial gift.

 

[1&2&3]

What are your opinions as to why Jonathon has refused to speak to the police? Two years later, the house is demolished, and Jonathon is the hold back on answering questions and giving a firm alibi for his whereabouts the night his parents were killed.

Why did Jonathon and his mother have such a negative relationship? Did it start when he was a young child or as he got into his teen years, those rebellious times?

 

[InspectorLoneRanger]

With respect, an estate freeze/S85.1 rollover is a common tool used to defer the realization of capital gains in exactly these sorts of situations. The person creating the estate freeze crystalizes the value of their common shares at the date of the transaction; transfers the common shares to the beneficiaries (presumably the children in this example), and takes back another form of shares (e.g. voting preferred shares). The common shares are transferred tax free to the children at the time of the estate freeze. and the common shares the acquire have an adjusted cost base equal to their FMV at that date. All future increases in the value of the company (represented by the common shares) accrue to the common shareholders, and are not taxed (for capital gains purposes) until these shares are disposed of, and the FMV of the shares are determined at that time.

I believe Barry may have in fact completed an estate freeze some time ago, and thereby created the situation where his beneficiaries are in fact common shareholders of Apotex. This would explain JS referring to his siblings as "fellow shareholders".

I have been involved in many of these estate freeze and similar type transactions over the course of my professional career- including the one you cite above.

I understand the confusion about Jon referring to his siblings as fellow shareholders. I interpreted it differently than you.

My interpretation was 1. Jon is crazy. 2. Jon knew that there were only four Beneficiaries (the kids). 3. Jon was suggesting that Barry's actions were jeopardizing their inheritance because Barry was no longer of sound mind. 4. Jon was looking for support from his siblings to band together and have Barry declared medically incompetent as Jon disliked Barry blocking/barring access to his piggy bank.

The test for mental incompetence is really difficult. From all verified sources I would say that Barry was at the top of his game. He was exercising. His business was more successful than ever. He was expanding his business. He was building a new home. He had a creative/artistic outlet with FDA making crappy movies. The cast of characters that Barry and Frank act in their movies was impressive. He was hosting fundraisers for the PM in his house. He was texting chatting with FDA every day/ every other day. If Barry lost a few million in poor investments it really shouldn't matter as he had a mutli-billion dollar gain he could offset the losses with once Apotex was sold. Jack Kay has noted that Barry thought & discussed the eventual sale and the possibility of selling for less than maximum value if someone kept the operations in Canada.

Here's an interesting article that highlights the relationship between Frank & Barry. Barry showed up to the movie Premiers and went on stage with Frank.
https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/11/james-caan-sicilian-vampire

There was a really nice article about Barry that someone had written in the paper which summed Barry up to a "T". There was a new employee at Apotox and he observed an older guy going around and emptying trash bins. The new employee pointed to the old guy and asked a coworker: "Is that the guy who empties the trash?". The co-worker stated "No - That is Barry Sherman the owner of Apotex". Despite his enormous wealth, Barry was a humble guy who would still take out the trash. He would fly coach or first class despite the fact that he could go out and buy a Private Jet.

There is a possibility that Barry moved the shares of Apotex over to a family trust years ago and settled up with the CRA. If that's the case then he would be a trustee and no longer a shareholder. The Trust would be it's own legal entity and it would not be an asset listed in Barry's Estate. Jon and his siblings would not be shareholders. They would be beneficiaries.

We should find out the answers after the SCC case.

 

[InspectorLoneRanger]

What are your opinions as to why Jonathon has refused to speak to the police? Two years later, the house is demolished, and Jonathon is the hold back on answering questions and giving a firm alibi for his whereabouts the night his parents were killed.

Why did Jonathon and his mother have such a negative relationship? Did it start when he was a young child or as he got into his teen years, those rebellious times?

If you go back to page 37 and click on the youtube link I provided you'll get a good understanding of KD's book. I don't want to keep posting the same links over and over again.

The only 2 people that know why Honey & Crazy Jon had a poor relationship are Honey & Jon. I can speculate but it's just my opinion. Honey was not Jonathon's biological parent. He was an oddball kid. Kerry Winter has written in this forum on the relationship between Honey & Kids. You should take a read.
Kerry Winter

 

[InspectorLoneRanger]

********** BREAKING NEWS ****************

I was just advised by my contact at the SCC that they received 5 factums today.

At the earliest, The 5 factums will be posted online at the SCC's website tomorrow at 9:30 AM
At the latest, they will be posted within 48 hours.

Here's the link
Supreme Court of Canada - SCC Case Information - Factums on Appeal - 38695

 

[InspectorLoneRanger]

What are your opinions as to why Jonathon has refused to speak to the police? Two years later, the house is demolished, and Jonathon is the hold back on answering questions and giving a firm alibi for his whereabouts the night his parents were killed.

Why did Jonathon and his mother have such a negative relationship? Did it start when he was a young child or as he got into his teen years, those rebellious times?

click on the link below:

Canada - Barry, 75, & Honey Sherman, 70, found dead, Toronto, 15 Dec 2017 #10

 

[al66pine]

@InspectorLoanRanger
Thanks for your link in post 752.
Supreme Court of Canada - SCC Case Information - Factums on Appeal - 38695 which led me to
https://www.scc-csc.ca/WebDocuments...man-and-the-Trustees-of-the-Estate-et-al..pdf
which appears to have been signed (also filed?) Nov 19, 2019.
I've got some reading to catch on.

 

[InspectorLoneRanger]

@InspectorLoanRanger
Thanks for your link in post 752.
Supreme Court of Canada - SCC Case Information - Factums on Appeal - 38695 which led me to
https://www.scc-csc.ca/WebDocuments...man-and-the-Trustees-of-the-Estate-et-al..pdf
which appears to have been signed (also filed?) Nov 19, 2019.
I've got some reading to catch on.

You are quite welcome.

There's going to be 5 more factums within 48 hours, and we'll get 5-10 more responses within 2 weeks.
I'll post the link as soon as I see them go up unless someone else beats me to the punch.

I spoke with Donovan last week and he's busy prepping for the trial but do expect a fleury of articles shortly after this takes place. Again, High Praise for KD for the way he's stick-handling this case. He's well-spoken, well-written, and well-mannered. He's everything a great lawyer aspires to be. I'd hate to play him in Poker.

 

[Lexiintoronto]

click on the link below:

Canada - Barry, 75, & Honey Sherman, 70, found dead, Toronto, 15 Dec 2017 #10

That’s my favourite Kerry Winter post, and I have a few.

“I cannot defend myself here. It wasn’t too long ago the TPS questioned my best friend and suggested a conspiracy to commit murder charge.”
Canada - Barry, 75, & Honey Sherman, 70, found dead, Toronto, 15 Dec 2017 #10

I wish Kerry would tell us what he thought of Donovan’s book.

 

[Lexiintoronto]

You are quite welcome.

There's going to be 5 more factums within 48 hours, and we'll get 5-10 more responses within 2 weeks.
I'll post the link as soon as I see them go up unless someone else beats me to the punch.

I spoke with Donovan last week and he's busy prepping for the trial but do expect a fleury of articles shortly after this takes place. Again, High Praise for KD for the way he's stick-handling this case. He's well-spoken, well-written, and well-mannered. He's everything a great lawyer aspires to be. I'd hate to play him in Poker.

What did you speak to Donovan about?

 

[InspectorLoneRanger]

That’s my favourite Kerry Winter post, and I have a few.

“I cannot defend myself here. It wasn’t too long ago the TPS questioned my best friend and suggested a conspiracy to commit murder charge.”
Canada - Barry, 75, & Honey Sherman, 70, found dead, Toronto, 15 Dec 2017 #10

I wish Kerry would tell us what he thought of Donovan’s book.

I was referring to this quote "Barry often told me Honey was “mean spirited”. He was constantly upset by her relationship with the children."

I also wanted to say that Kerry Winter is one of the kindest & nicest & brightest people you could ever meet. He'd give you the shirt of his back if you needed it more than he did. He's been unfairly portrayed by most media, although I thought Donovan's description was nice. He described Kerry as a late-night DJ who's open, bright, and inciteful. He's also been victimized a handful of times by the Sherman family and their paid henceman. Crazy Jon pointed the finger at Kerry, FDA as well as JK all in quick succession.

IMO The greatest story from the bible is the story of Betrayal. Judas kissing Jesus on the cheek. That was cold.

Barry was a great businessman but he had 2 sides. Loving and Giving vs Cruel & Evil. FDA said it best. If you hit Barry with a fly swatter he's coming after you with a sledgehammer.
Great Businessmen are wired differently than everyone else. Barry was very much like President Trump. Trump is so cruel he tricked his father, who had dementia, to cut the Family of Freddy Trump Jr out of the will. When the family of Freddy Trump Jr sued a week later, Mr. Trump retaliated by withdrawing the medical benefits critical to his nephew’s infant child who had CP.
Donald Trump Is Senselessly Cruel

 

[InspectorLoneRanger]

What did you speak to Donovan about?

The SCC case and Jon Sherman.

 

[InspectorLoneRanger]

***************** BREAKING NEWS ON CASE *****************

As discussed. Here are the links to the rest of the Factums at the SCC

Supreme Court of Canada - SCC Case Information - Factums on Appeal - 38695

• Appellants Estate-of-Bernard-Sherman-and-the-Trustees-of-the-Estate-et-al..pdf

• Intervener Income-Security-Advocacy-Centre.pdf

• Interveners HIV-&-Aids-Legal-Clinic-Ontario-et-al.pdf

• Intervener British-Columbia-Civil-Liberties-Association.pdf

• Intervener Canadian-Civil-Liberties-Association.PDF

• Intervener Ad-IDEM-Canadian-Media-Lawyers-Association-et-al.pdf

I quickly reviewed the material. The Canadian Civil Liberties and Canadian Media Lawyers Association were the 2 heavy lifters providing the most back-up to KD.

I don't think the full factum is listed for "The Canadian Media Lawyers" but based on their evidence they are bringing the proverbial gun to a knife fight.

The briefs for the applicant (Sherman estate) contained too much conjecture. The Sherman lawyers really didn't have a choice as the law is not on their side so I applaud them for fighting the good fight.

Anything can happen it court so it's not like it's a slam dunk but I fully expect a quick decision respecting the openness of courts. I also expect a quick decision from the court respecting the power of the press as well as respecing the role the press plays in upholding our political system.

 

[InspectorLoneRanger]

Here's the link for the missing Canadian Media Lawyers Factum.

https://www.scc-csc.ca/WebDocuments...ener_Canadian-Civil-Liberties-Association.PDF