http://roadracingworld.com/news/article/?article=40591
looks like the pie man is having some troubles...
sounds like mom is ....... things up for him.
looks like the pie man is having some troubles...
Help Support MotoGP Forum:
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2007
- Messages
- 10,518
- Location
- Tennessee
I guess that means Spies and Speeze racing is making around 4 mil a year. The disturbing part of that whole article was that Spies had no idea his mommy owned 51% of him until it came out in deposistion. Maybe putting a little to much trust in mommy.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2006
- Messages
- 11,345
- Location
- Texas
his moms a ......
the only thing i do not like bout Spies is his mother..he needs to get off the ....
the only thing i do not like bout Spies is his mother..he needs to get off the ....
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2009
- Messages
- 1,453
- Location
- California
Wow, there's some ugly things in that article. Seems like Ben's mom is a complete ..... and a thief on top of that!! The part about how she routinely accepts services and the backs out of contracts is particularly disturbing. Also the fact that she's got 51% of everything is a bit scary.
Well well well, place your bets please, WILL Mary be in Ben's pit box in Mugello? My guess is that Ben has already spoken with an attorney, putting the wheels in motion to ditch his mother. Mary has been a constant disruption in the garage. Time for mommy to hit the bricks.
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2006
- Messages
- 24,726
- Location
- Your Mom's House
Agree Man, nothing good can come out of this. His head is screwed. Also, 15% of your earnings? That seems way too much for the representing firm. So she is a dumb ... for agreeing to that in the first place.
Let me explain
When you have a normal agent, you pay 15% for their services and that's it. You don't get 48% of the profits earned by the agency that represents you. Furthermore, it makes perfect sense that Mary would own a majority share b/c management is her job and there are many various advantages to being a minority held company. I'm not saying that Mary isn't a problem or that she hasn't made a big legal mistake, but the fact that she splits the representation and negotiation fees with her son (at least in some capacity we don't know what kind of compensation she gives herself) is a luxury that no one else in the paddock enjoys.
The only ugly dirt in this article is that Spies has pierced the corporate veil on numerous occasions (or Mary did it unwittingly) which completely nullified the LLC protection. Normally after a suit of this magnitude, you'd simply declare bankruptcy for Speez Racing LLC and you'd tell Protac to go screw themselves for violating fiduciary responsibility to their client (if those allegations are correct), but in this case, the LLC protection doesn't apply b/c Spies didn't follow the rules which means he is now personally liable for the $1.9M and the actions of Speez Racing.
If only they had hired an accountant he probably wouldn't be personally liable for the 1.9M judgment against him.
When you have a normal agent, you pay 15% for their services and that's it. You don't get 48% of the profits earned by the agency that represents you. Furthermore, it makes perfect sense that Mary would own a majority share b/c management is her job and there are many various advantages to being a minority held company. I'm not saying that Mary isn't a problem or that she hasn't made a big legal mistake, but the fact that she splits the representation and negotiation fees with her son (at least in some capacity we don't know what kind of compensation she gives herself) is a luxury that no one else in the paddock enjoys.
The only ugly dirt in this article is that Spies has pierced the corporate veil on numerous occasions (or Mary did it unwittingly) which completely nullified the LLC protection. Normally after a suit of this magnitude, you'd simply declare bankruptcy for Speez Racing LLC and you'd tell Protac to go screw themselves for violating fiduciary responsibility to their client (if those allegations are correct), but in this case, the LLC protection doesn't apply b/c Spies didn't follow the rules which means he is now personally liable for the $1.9M and the actions of Speez Racing.
If only they had hired an accountant he probably wouldn't be personally liable for the 1.9M judgment against him.
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2007
- Messages
- 10,518
- Location
- Tennessee
I wonder if the 1.9 mil comes out of mommies 51%
It would if they hadn't pierced the veil of limited liability. If they had done things properly neither of them would be personally liable b/c the liability would fall upon Speez LLC. The whole purpose of forming an LLC is to limit the liability exposure for business that deal with complex contracts (e.g. construction firms, accounting firms, management services). If they had just managed the finances properly, they'd be in a much better position b/c the option of bankruptcy would be on the table which would give them some leverage. Instead, bankruptcy is not on the table b/c Ben and Mary are personally liable (Ben will end up paying for it b/c he's got the money) which means they were sitting ducks waiting to be picked off by an arbitration company that may not have any objectivity whatsoever.
Mary is certainly partially to blame, but I don't think the management side of the business is what led to their downfall. It looks like they had too little help managing the money and keeping their books straight which completely nullified the limited liability privileges of an LLC. Either that or they just got played by a private arbitration company who is not the least bit impartial.
Traverser
Save Jabesus
- Joined
- May 27, 2006
- Messages
- 4,024
- Location
- Mts-7
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2006
- Messages
- 24,726
- Location
- Your Mom's House
True, and they ...... this one up. Mom and
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2007
- Messages
- 2,302
- Location
- Alpha Setti 5
That's outrageous, just goes to show some people will do anything for money, what a whore! You should be able to trust your mum, at least.
No wonder he's not riding so well, with all that going on.
No wonder he's not riding so well, with all that going on.
Thanks for the endorsement, but I'd be out of my league handling Spies finances.
I can't even imagine the complications that arise from earning income in 10-12 different countries. Frightening. I could do the bookkeeping for Spies Racing LLC, but that's about all I could do for such a complicated situation. I can barely do US Tax returns for my oil clients who spend 10 months of the year in the Middle East. Don't tell them I said that.
Maybe ambition got the better of the Spies family.
You've got to wonder, though, what type of management firm wouldn't be jumping at the opportunity to boost one of the hottest rider in international bike racing into MotoGP. It means that Mary & Ben are full of crap and they tried to screw this Protac company. Or Protac are a completely bent organization that wanted Ben to stay in WSBK b/c they wanted a cut of the championship bonuses then they rigged the contract with a bogus arbitration firm. In other words, they completely violated their responsibility to Ben.
Neither would surprise me.
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2009
- Messages
- 958
I don't think Spies tax situation is too complicated. There are a number of tax jurisdictions that he earns money through however for a lot of these there will be a Double Tax Agreement between that jurisdiction and the US which should specify which jurisdiction (either both or only one) has the right to tax the income. I don't know where Spies is living - I assume back in the US so for tax residence purposes he will still be a resident of the US under most of the DTAs. Of course once a citizen of the US, always a citizen so the IRS will chase him round the globe.
The Australian system is better for international sports stars as once you break tax residency status, you're not liable for tax in Australia unless that income is sourced in Australia. This means that people like CS, Troy Bayliss etc can live in a jurisdiction such as Monaco which doesn't tax their income. As they are not a resident of Australia, they won't pay tax in Australia either so their income is tax free (unless a specific jurisdiction they travel to has the right to put their hand out). Once they retire, they move back to Australia with a lot more wealth than they would otherwise have. Then of course there are people like Paul Hogan (Crocodile Dundee) who are accused of evading their tax obligations and now are spending millions fighting the tax man.
Spies made a mistake in limiting his contesting rights solely to an arbitratior. When there is a lot of money involved, you want a court to decide as they generally have smarter people with a thorough understanding of the law. An arbitration company I wouldn't think would be in the same category. Over here in Australia, we have tribunals and lower level courts and their decisions are forever being overturned because they have erred at law.
One thing I have realised, there are some really ordinary accountants and solicitors out there. The clients do not know exactly how much is being neglected or has been poorly or invalidly implemented until it is too late. It's good for me because I am building my business and generaly all I need to do is get in front of some of these people and they realise how much they have been ....., how exposed they are and that there are a lot of accountants, solicitors and tax specialists who are charging a lot of money for shoddy work.
As for the percentages - 15% is not unreasonable. I have a client (I won't name them) who became famous in the US and they pay 20% to their manager. I think 20% is a little high but that's what they agreed to. That same manager has other agreements which generally give him 10-20%.
The Australian system is better for international sports stars as once you break tax residency status, you're not liable for tax in Australia unless that income is sourced in Australia. This means that people like CS, Troy Bayliss etc can live in a jurisdiction such as Monaco which doesn't tax their income. As they are not a resident of Australia, they won't pay tax in Australia either so their income is tax free (unless a specific jurisdiction they travel to has the right to put their hand out). Once they retire, they move back to Australia with a lot more wealth than they would otherwise have. Then of course there are people like Paul Hogan (Crocodile Dundee) who are accused of evading their tax obligations and now are spending millions fighting the tax man.
Spies made a mistake in limiting his contesting rights solely to an arbitratior. When there is a lot of money involved, you want a court to decide as they generally have smarter people with a thorough understanding of the law. An arbitration company I wouldn't think would be in the same category. Over here in Australia, we have tribunals and lower level courts and their decisions are forever being overturned because they have erred at law.
One thing I have realised, there are some really ordinary accountants and solicitors out there. The clients do not know exactly how much is being neglected or has been poorly or invalidly implemented until it is too late. It's good for me because I am building my business and generaly all I need to do is get in front of some of these people and they realise how much they have been ....., how exposed they are and that there are a lot of accountants, solicitors and tax specialists who are charging a lot of money for shoddy work.
As for the percentages - 15% is not unreasonable. I have a client (I won't name them) who became famous in the US and they pay 20% to their manager. I think 20% is a little high but that's what they agreed to. That same manager has other agreements which generally give him 10-20%.
It's not the domestic stuff I'm worried about, it's the foreign tax laws that would keep me up at night. It sounds like things are easier in Australia than they are in the US. In the US we have to deal with TIPRA which is a complicated tax bill passed in 2005 which constantly screws around with the foreign income exclusion and the deductions for foreign housing allowances or other employee/contractor perks. It's only troublesome for me b/c both the guys I do taxes for are right on the exclusion bubble every single year.
It's not that bad, but I wouldn't want to be responsible for figuring out how to deal with foreign tax agencies.
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2009
- Messages
- 958
Yes it may be a little simpler - there still is a lot to be aware of though. The clients that I have who are US citizens always have a complicated tax process each year - having to lodge US and Australian tax returns. The whole process is made worse due to the different tax year end dates.
I think Mr Spies needs to get the right advisors around him. At least this has happened early in his career rather than at the end when he'd made all his coin. Would love to have known the detail of Valentino's tax debacle. He was holding himself out to be a resident of the UK instead of Italy wasn't he? If he could achieve that it is possible that he wouldn't pay any tax on a large part of his income. We have clients who have gone to the UK and because they are not citizens, foreign sourced income which is not remitted to the UK isn't taxed.
I think Mr Spies needs to get the right advisors around him. At least this has happened early in his career rather than at the end when he'd made all his coin. Would love to have known the detail of Valentino's tax debacle. He was holding himself out to be a resident of the UK instead of Italy wasn't he? If he could achieve that it is possible that he wouldn't pay any tax on a large part of his income. We have clients who have gone to the UK and because they are not citizens, foreign sourced income which is not remitted to the UK isn't taxed.
Arrabbiata1
Blue Smoker
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2008
- Messages
- 6,925
- Location
- Out of Nowhere
Don't swim with 'Great White' sharks.
Attachments
Similar threads
