Canada - Barry, 75, & Honey Sherman, 70, found dead, Toronto, 15 Dec 2017 #3

[DarkSkink]

Actually, as a combined income Honey with Bernard, she would be at the top of the income tax bracket no matter what.Depends on the filing of income tax, which none of us have access to.

Do you have a record of her investment portfolio?

Other than as a board member, I see no other public records. Maybe you have access to it,or can find it.

I found IMO questionable donations. One to the liberals for sure.It is a problem for Trudeau because Barry was a lobbyist. Which is why the ethics commision is involved .

I'm personally not on a witch hunt to prove that the Shermans had illegal dealings financially, or with regards to their past lawsuits other than to try to figure out with very little information what happened to these poor people. No one should die this way IMO.

Again, for me it is the physical evidence from the autopsies, toxicology etc. For instance, if they were murdered, was by someone professional? Mistakes can be made from a lack of evidence. An example of this would be the lack of defence wounds on Honey ,or Bernard. Secondary injuries.I'm still hopuing that someone can find another case in which a wealthy couple committed suicide by hanging.

The Trudeau government recently announced some tax changes, some of which included ending some loopholes like setting up corporations in order to pay family members. The resulting uproar, attributed to "small business" wasn't coming from small businesses.

Apparently, the house was recently transferred over to her. Where was it transferred from? A holding company?

Their income will likely be set up through multiple entities (corporations). The house can be owned through a real estate investment company so they can expense repairs, utilities etc., cars can be owned by other entities so they pay nothing, and investments can be in other corporations. If they really wanted to be belligerent about not paying taxes, they could set themselves up as consultants, and show a financial loss every year.

 

[crhedBngr]

But look at the number of women, who after a very long and 'successful' marriage, decide that they've had enough and file for divorce.

I think its called 'grey divorces' and its predominantly women who initiate them. The men usually do not even see it coming, as they are quite happily married.....ie their needs are getting met.

I know, it all seemed great on the outside, doesn't mean it was great behind closed doors. It doesn't have to be a new man, it sometimes is just time to walk away.

The kids were all grown, lives of their own and successful (Im assuming) and there was an article that indicated they had some friction, being so different and all. Possibly, Honey wanted to be free to do as she wished.....and he took umbrage. Could she have let him know she was done......the new house was HER new house?

Just a thought......

PS I say this for many reasons. Its not fun being married to a work-a-holic. Their absence does not make the heart grow fonder.
Her job as a mother was done and maybe it was just getting old, very old.

I've seen divorces in marriages around the time that all of the kids have been raised and are out of the house. Both parents made a concerted effort to be there for their children, and then go their separate ways, having tolerated each other's foibles for 18+ years.

These divorces aren't always bitter - my brother-in-law is still very close to his ex. Their parting has been described as "the most amiable divorce" the rest of the family has seen! And, they still go on cruises together with their son and his girlfriend; they are better off as friends than as partners.

As to work-a-holics being difficult to deal with, I can understand this.

Guess we'll just have to wait and see what develops here.

 

[DarkSkink]

The Trudeau government recently announced some tax changes, some of which included ending some loopholes like setting up corporations in order to pay family members. The resulting uproar, attributed to "small business" wasn't coming from small businesses.

Apparently, the house was recently transferred over to her. Where was it transferred from? A holding company?

Their income will likely be set up through multiple entities (corporations). The house can be owned through a real estate investment company so they can expense repairs, utilities etc., cars can be owned by other entities so they pay nothing, and investments can be in other corporations. If they really wanted to be belligerent about not paying taxes, they could set themselves up as consultants, and show a financial loss every year.

Who knows, perhaps even the Panama Papers or Paradise Papers even played a part in this, be it murder or suicide.

 

[Wyle_E_Coyote]

Isn't their current house titled in both of their names?

If they didn't care about the current house being in both names, why would they put the new house in just Honey's name?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[DarkSkink]

Isn't their current house titled in both of their names?

If they didn't care about the current house being in both names, why would they put the new house in just Honey's name?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

There was talk of privacy concerns, so certain numbers aren't publicly accessible. That may be correct.

There is likely a financial benefit to doing so also. If the sale of the house is a primary residence, then there are no Capital Gains Tax to be paid. If, for example it was sold to her for $0 from a holding company, the company pays nothing, and again, if they want to be bold about it, the company could possibly claim a financial loss.

When the sale of the house happens, they pay no tax on it, and the money can be used again to spread it around between all the different entities. If the money transaction is only in her name, then she may be able to spread that money out in different ways than perhaps if they both were on title.

If you or your companies are paying your accountant firm 6 figures a year already, it is nothing to have them set up and manage everything right down to your toilet paper. It's all just numbers on a screen.

Would the government ever do a serious audit if it meant losing all the jobs and revenue the companies provide? Unfortunately, laws and ethics are two different entities as well.

 

[Tighthead]

There was talk of privacy concerns, so certain numbers aren't publicly accessible. That may be correct.

There is likely a financial benefit to doing so also. If the sale of the house is a primary residence, then there are no Capital Gains Tax to be paid. If, for example it was sold to her for $0 from a holding company, the company pays nothing, and again, if they want to be bold about it, the company could possibly claim a financial loss.

When the sale of the house happens, they pay no tax on it, and the money can be used again to spread it around between all the different entities. If the money transaction is only in her name, then she may be able to spread that money out in different ways than perhaps if they both were on title.

If you or your companies are paying your accountant firm 6 figures a year already, it is nothing to have them set up and manage everything right down to your toilet paper. It's all just numbers on a screen.

Would the government ever do a serious audit if it meant losing all the jobs and revenue the companies provide? Unfortunately, laws and ethics are two different entities as well.

A comoany can’t just gift out assets to shareholders or others without it being a taxable event. It’s not that simple. If it was people would pay them selves in non cash assets and pay no tax.

The $0 transaction was from the previous owners and would be for privacy reasons.

Registration in her name alone would likely be for liability protection and convenience.

 

[DarkSkink]

Here is an interesting read that explains, or tries to explain some of what I was talking about.

https://www.joshuakennon.com/how-a-holding-company-works/

 

[JDG]

I've seen divorces in marriages around the time that all of the kids have been raised and are out of the house. Both parents made a concerted effort to be there for their children, and then go their separate ways, having tolerated each other's foibles for 18+ years.

These divorces aren't always bitter - my brother-in-law is still very close to his ex. Their parting has been described as "the most amiable divorce" the rest of the family has seen! And, they still go on cruises together with their son and his girlfriend; they are better off as friends than as partners.

As to work-a-holics being difficult to deal with, I can understand this.

Guess we'll just have to wait and see what develops here.

I wasn't speaking about divorces in general nor about bitter divorces. I was referring to the grey divorces and in no way was I suggesting that there was violence in their marriage. Only they would know those details.

I was surmising, after thoroughly reading BSs 'thoughts on life' and noting his attitudes, that if he and Honey were having a discussion after the architect meeting, she may have let it be known that she was filing for divorce.

Those types of divorces are mostly a case where the couple have grown apart, the woman realizes that she doesn't want to spend her retirement years with 'that guy' and that she has another 20 years of life to live.

So, what if upon hearing that BS decides that divorce would be the final and worst humiliation and he lashed out.
He was being investigated for lobbying, not a minor issue.....Apotex and Teva were having 'difficulties'.....and IF Honey announced she'd had enough.....maybe he couldn't handle it. The straw that broke the camels back. The camel may have reacted violently, for possibly the ONLY time.

PS I think they usually apply to older people, with marriages of 30+ years.

 

[DarkSkink]

A comoany can’t just gift out assets to shareholders or others without it being a taxable event. It’s not that simple. If it was people would pay them selves in non cash assets and pay no tax.

The $0 transaction was from the previous owners and would be for privacy reasons.

Registration in her name alone would likely be for liability protection and convenience.

There will be a financial advantage component to it. Even the "taxable event" can be offset by taking on financial losses and deferrals, not to mention personal contribution limits to political parties etc.

 

[MistyWaters]

I can't help myself from being reminded of the initial suicide determination in the death of Dellen Millard's father, who's murder he was subsequently charged with. It leaves me to speculate that LE classifies deaths "non criminal" in the event of lack of obvious criminal indications at the scene, but years later that may change.

".......Did police investigate the death of Wayne Millard as a crime?

When police were called to the Etobicoke house where Wayne Millard and his son lived in November 2012, they found the elder Millard dead. After investigating, police deemed the death “not criminal” and said the gunshot wound that killed him was the result of an apparent suicide. However, after Millard and Mark Smich, 26, were arrested for Bosma’s death, the police reopened the case, and assigned homicide investigators. The coroner’s office said their investigation had been — and was — still open...."
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...s_in_the_alleged_dellen_millard_killings.html

 

[MistyWaters]

About the zero dollar land transfer, this is quite common.

"........The Old Forest Hill Rd. property was transferred to Honey for $0 in 2016 from Abraham J. Green Ltd. The property was once owned by another prominent couple in philanthropic circles and the Jewish community, the late Al and Malka Green. Honey and Malka were both directors at the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies.

Real estate lawyer Mark Weisleder reviewed the property transfer record for the Star, and explained that the Shermans would have paid the provincial and municipal land transfer taxes directly to the Ministry of Finance and the City of Toronto before the sale closed to avoid having the cost of the property show up on property records.

Some people don’t want the price they paid for their home to be readily available to the public, he said......"
http://www.metronews.ca/news/toront...oney-and-barry-sherman-would-have-built-.html

 

[DarkSkink]

About the zero dollar land transfer, this is quite common.

"........The Old Forest Hill Rd. property was transferred to Honey for $0 in 2016 from Abraham J. Green Ltd. The property was once owned by another prominent couple in philanthropic circles and the Jewish community, the late Al and Malka Green. Honey and Malka were both directors at the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies.

Real estate lawyer Mark Weisleder reviewed the property transfer record for the Star, and explained that the Shermans would have paid the provincial and municipal land transfer taxes directly to the Ministry of Finance and the City of Toronto before the sale closed to avoid having the cost of the property show up on property records.

Some people don’t want the price they paid for their home to be readily available to the public, he said......"
http://www.metronews.ca/news/toront...oney-and-barry-sherman-would-have-built-.html

"Transferred to Honey for $0 in 2016 from Abraham J. Green Ltd."

Emphasis on the "2016" and on the "Ltd."

 

[Tighthead]

There will be a financial advantage component to it. Even the "taxable event" can be offset by taking on financial losses and deferrals, not to mention personal contribution limits to political parties etc.

What specifically, to your knowledge, are the advantages and what sort of specific $0 transaction are you talking about? How does

Do you agree that CRA would assess the transaction at FMV, or do you maintain your assertion that it is non taxable?

Do you think that such a transaction would attract scrutiny?

What is the specific interrelation between this sort of transaction and donations to political parties?

How would an individual defer taxes on a $10 million dollar asset that was transferred to them from a company?

You seem to have a very vague knowledge of tax concepts and are just throwing around buzzwords.

 

[Tighthead]

"Transferred to Honey for $0 in 2016 from Abraham J. Green Ltd."

Emphasis on the "2016" and on the "Ltd."

That is when they purchased the property for the previous owners. What is the purpose of emphasis on 2016? It’s been established that that is when they purchased the property.

Are you suggesting that that there was no consideration paid from Honey Sherman to the Green company?

 

[Tighthead]

About the zero dollar land transfer, this is quite common.

"........The Old Forest Hill Rd. property was transferred to Honey for $0 in 2016 from Abraham J. Green Ltd. The property was once owned by another prominent couple in philanthropic circles and the Jewish community, the late Al and Malka Green. Honey and Malka were both directors at the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies.

Real estate lawyer Mark Weisleder reviewed the property transfer record for the Star, and explained that the Shermans would have paid the provincial and municipal land transfer taxes directly to the Ministry of Finance and the City of Toronto before the sale closed to avoid having the cost of the property show up on property records.

Some people don’t want the price they paid for their home to be readily available to the public, he said......"
http://www.metronews.ca/news/toront...oney-and-barry-sherman-would-have-built-.html

Thanks for this. This is a nice clear explantation. For some reason people find it mysterious.

As for the direct payment, that just means it wouldn’t have flowed through the vendor’s lawyers’ trust account. It’s of no practical difference.

 

[DarkSkink]

What specifically, to your knowledge, are the advantages and what sort of specific $0 transaction are you talking about? How does

Do you agree that CRA would assess the transaction at FMV, or do you maintain your assertion that it is non taxable?

Do you think that such a transaction would attract scrutiny?

What is the specific interrelation between this sort of transaction and donations to political parties?

How would an individual defer taxes on a $10 million dollar asset that was transferred to them from a company?

You seem to have a very vague knowledge of tax concepts and are just throwing around buzzwords.

How long did they live in the house? Why was the transfer in 2016? Were they just renting the house from the Ltd. Company?

Since you're claiming to be an expert, explain the possible financial benefits to that arrangement, without confirming everything I described.

 

[JDG]

A person's membership in the Order ceases when . . . (a) the person dies
http://www.gg.ca/document.aspx?id=14945

THE ORDER OF CANADA

TERMINATION OF MEMBERSHIP IN THE ORDER

25. A person's membership in the Order ceases when
(a) the person dies;
(b) the Governor General accepts the person's resignation from the Order, which resignation shall have been made in writing and given to the Secretary General; or
(c) the Governor General makes an Ordinance terminating the person's appointment to the Order.

Must admit, I am puzzled as to why the Sherman family are being allowed to pick this up given the circumstances. If proven to be a killer, it will have to be terminated AND he was deceased before he was given the award. I realize a 'decision' had been made but surely 'decisions' can be unmade or held back pending investigation of both the lobbying issue and the atrocious crime. No?

 

[Tighthead]

How long did they live in the house? Why was the transfer in 2016? Were they just renting the house from the Ltd. Company?

Since you're claiming to be an expert, explain the possible financial benefits to that arrangement, without confirming everything I described.

First of all cite, with specificity, where I claimed to be an expert. Yet another baseless assertion you can’t follow up on.

They never lived in the house. It was purchased in 2016 from the Green company, and demolished following the permitting and variance stages.

The transfer was in 2016 because that is when they purchased it. Why do you think it is more nefarious?

I will repeat do you think Honey Sherman paid no consideration to Green Ltd. for the house and if so why do you think that?

As for the financial benefit, I don’t understand the question. They bought the property from the vendor. The financial advantage of this “arrangement” was obtaining an asset they desired at a price they thought fair. Same as most house purchases.

What do do you consider unusual about the “arrangement”?

 

[neesaki]

None. Dogs and cats don't routinely hang each other.
As I have said I have had advanced pathology training. I have been quite transparent in why I joined this forum and am offering my skills in helping.

Glad you joined us, catdctr ! Your experience, expertise, and opinions are greatly appreciated ! :welcome:

 

[MistyWaters]

Thanks for this. This is a nice clear explantation. For some reason people find it mysterious.

As for the direct payment, that just means it wouldn’t have flowed through the vendor’s lawyers’ trust account. It’s of no practical difference.

Yes that's how I see it to be as well. The sole risk to the buyer is the vendor flipping the property to more than one purchaser prior to the closing date but obviously that's not a concern amongst circles involving established and known connections, as were the two parties involved.

Because purchase proceeds and transfer taxes are paid directly to the seller at some point in advance, on the purchase date the sale becomes a zero dollar land transfer.

One of the reasons someone might not want the cost to purchase known is, so public records do not reveal purchase price. This was not the case with the home that had not yet sold, as why this --

"The couple bought the house in 1985 for $390,000, property records show."
http://nationalpost.com/news/toront...after-bodies-found-in-couples-toronto-mansion

JMO