Jump to content


Photo

McLaren MP4-27 Part III


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
3962 replies to this topic

#2951 David1976

David1976
  • Member

  • 823 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 11 October 2012 - 09:47

From my armchair's perspective it seems that McLaren have one of the best, if not the best, car's this year.

The race team however continue to let themselves down by not delivering on the promise.

Whitmarsh has to take responsibility for this in my opinion. In any other industry this would have probably already happened. At Ferrari he would have been history...

Advertisement

#2952 bauss

bauss
  • Member

  • 4,961 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 11 October 2012 - 09:51

funny enough I think the advantage is gone... RedBull now with the DDRS and latest upgrades looks the fastest car.

We had the fastest car for a bit no doubt though, and the driving was solid atleast from one driver....the team has just failed once too many times in completing the whole package needed to win

Edited by bauss, 11 October 2012 - 09:52.


#2953 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 4,737 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 11 October 2012 - 09:55

Hmm the first evidence of this was Australia 2010 , when they brought Lewis in for no reason and he complained on the radio(rightly so, I woud of LOVE to have been here for that race, can someone that was joined up with autosport then give a sight into everyone's reaction's. Because i was on 606 and it did get abit choatic , It was still a brilliant race by him and JB but Mclaren for me that day just gave of a fishy smell. That crap would have never of happened if heikki was in that situation.


It should be all there: http://forums.autosp...hp?showforum=21

#2954 Disgrace

Disgrace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 9,651 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 11 October 2012 - 10:00

McLaren says Hamilton had a suspension issue in the Japanese GP

http://www.autosport...t.php/id/103277

Thank you McLaren...
Hopeless...


Strategy and reliability have seriously overshadowed what has been on occasion the fastest car in the field.

#2955 maverick69

maverick69
  • Member

  • 4,419 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 11 October 2012 - 10:14

Posted Image

#2956 jrg19

jrg19
  • Member

  • 6,118 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 11 October 2012 - 10:52

Guess only good thing about the Japan problem is that Lewis can hopefully be on a pair with the Red Bulls this week.

#2957 Sinceref189

Sinceref189
  • Member

  • 585 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 11 October 2012 - 11:05

Posted Image

I really do love gifs i do lol So Guys this is down to another reliability problem, hopefully it is a one off and he can be competitive this weekend. Mclaren have really ****ed up this season :rolleyes:

#2958 cooper

cooper
  • Member

  • 388 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 11 October 2012 - 11:36

Every single race for McLaren is going to be important, Lewis needs to be qualifying in the top 3 and finishing 1st for every race to have a realistic chance of winning this year. Jenson also needs to bring home some solid points to help with our WCC campaign!

That said Europe looked like they were going to lose the Ryder cup and came through to win from a huge gap and Sebastian came from behind to win the 2010 championship.. Just please no more DNF's :down:

#2959 stevesingo

stevesingo
  • Member

  • 121 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 11 October 2012 - 11:45

I dont think they were, they closed it before and reopened it on exit.


http://www.bbc.co.uk...rmula1/19855453

:eek:

Advertisement

#2960 Anonymous

Anonymous
  • Member

  • 2,948 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 11 October 2012 - 11:50

http://f1zoom.fx1.nl...k...g=11&full=1
http://f1zoom.fx1.nl...k...=163&full=1
http://f1zoom.fx1.nl...k...=235&full=1
http://f1zoom.fx1.nl...k...=236&full=1
http://f1zoom.fx1.nl...k...=229&full=1
http://f1zoom.fx1.nl...k...=238&full=1
http://f1zoom.fx1.nl...k...=240&full=1
http://f1zoom.fx1.nl...k...=239&full=1
http://f1zoom.fx1.nl...k...=247&full=1
http://f1zoom.fx1.nl...k...=248&full=1
http://f1zoom.fx1.nl...k...=249&full=1
http://f1zoom.fx1.nl...k...=250&full=1


#2961 ATM_Andy

ATM_Andy
  • Member

  • 1,482 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 11 October 2012 - 12:19

The 2007 £49m FIA fine has been found to be tax deductible, in an appeal case of HMRC vs McLaren.
Thats Sergio's Salary sorted :cool:


#2962 Markn93

Markn93
  • Member

  • 4,073 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 11 October 2012 - 12:22

The 2007 £49m FIA fine has been found to be tax deductible, in an appeal case of HMRC vs McLaren.
Thats Sergio's Salary sorted :cool:


Brilliant! :lol:

#2963 f1fastestlap

f1fastestlap
  • Member

  • 1,795 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 11 October 2012 - 12:22

The 2007 £49m FIA fine has been found to be tax deductible, in an appeal case of HMRC vs McLaren.
Thats Sergio's Salary sorted :cool:


:lol:
Nice one...

#2964 Webber

Webber
  • New Member

  • 18 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 11 October 2012 - 12:27

http://f1zoom.fx1.nl...k...=229&full=1


why does she insist on wearing these hot shorts ?


#2965 senna da silva

senna da silva
  • Member

  • 4,431 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 11 October 2012 - 12:43

The 2007 £49m FIA fine has been found to be tax deductible, in an appeal case of HMRC vs McLaren.
Thats Sergio's Salary sorted :cool:


Now you just have to worry about paying for the Merc engines and Button's overblown salary.  ;)

#2966 David1976

David1976
  • Member

  • 823 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 11 October 2012 - 12:48

The 2007 £49m FIA fine has been found to be tax deductible, in an appeal case of HMRC vs McLaren.
Thats Sergio's Salary sorted :cool:


Max will be spinning in his dungeon.

#2967 Anonymous

Anonymous
  • Member

  • 2,948 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 11 October 2012 - 12:57

The 2007 £49m FIA fine has been found to be tax deductible, in an appeal case of HMRC vs McLaren.
Thats Sergio's Salary sorted :cool:


:rotfl: :rotfl: That's fantastic.

Now you just have to worry about paying for the Merc engines and Button's overblown salary.;)


LOL

Edited by Anonymous, 11 October 2012 - 13:01.


#2968 loki0420

loki0420
  • Member

  • 409 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 11 October 2012 - 12:58

The 2007 £49m FIA fine has been found to be tax deductible, in an appeal case of HMRC vs McLaren.
Thats Sergio's Salary sorted :cool:

thats really hard for me to understand :confused:

can anyone shed some light for narrow-minded people like me?

#2969 Kvothe

Kvothe
  • Member

  • 6,813 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 11 October 2012 - 12:59

The 2007 £49m FIA fine has been found to be tax deductible, in an appeal case of HMRC vs McLaren.
Thats Sergio's Salary sorted :cool:


thats really hard for me to understand :confused:

can anyone shed some light for narrow-minded people like me?


Nice to know you won the appeal, I'm attempting to look it up West Law now, I'll copy and paste the ratio decendi.

Edited by Kvothe, 11 October 2012 - 13:00.


#2970 Maustinsj

Maustinsj
  • Member

  • 601 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 11 October 2012 - 13:00

The 2007 £49m FIA fine has been found to be tax deductible, in an appeal case of HMRC vs McLaren.
Thats Sergio's Salary sorted :cool:


Actually, since the tax relief would be at probably 26%, then that works out at about £13m - not so far off!

But, yes, I get the humour :up:

#2971 Maustinsj

Maustinsj
  • Member

  • 601 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 11 October 2012 - 13:04

thats really hard for me to understand :confused:

can anyone shed some light for narrow-minded people like me?


If you break the law, fines etc are normally not allowed as business expenditure that you can get tax relief on.

Not sure about this case, but there must have been something in the £49m fine's wording that meant it wasn't the same as, say, a speeding ticket, which is not allowable.

And yes, I am an accountant. :blush:

PS This might help http://news.bbc.co.u...000/9759000.stm

Edited by Maustinsj, 11 October 2012 - 13:43.


#2972 bonjon1979a

bonjon1979a
  • Member

  • 3,163 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 11 October 2012 - 13:05

thats really hard for me to understand :confused:

can anyone shed some light for narrow-minded people like me?


Expenses incurred aren't taxable and are deducted from overall profit. Let's say that Mclaren's profit was $200 million dollars and the corporation tax was set at 20%. Mclaren would have to pay a tax bill of $40 million. HMRC would argue that the fine wasn't a tax deductible expense because it's a penalty rather than an expense. It seems that Mclaren won the case which means they can include it as an expense so they can deduct it from their overall profit. Using my figures that would mean that the company's overall profit would be $151 so the tax bill would only be $30.2 million giving them a tax saving of $9.8 million.

#2973 jrg19

jrg19
  • Member

  • 6,118 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 11 October 2012 - 13:11

why does she insist on wearing these hot shorts ?


She could handle my gun.

#2974 Obi Offiah

Obi Offiah
  • Member

  • 8,340 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 11 October 2012 - 13:26

She could handle my gun.

Would that be the Heizer DoubleTap™?

#2975 JRizzle86

JRizzle86
  • Member

  • 2,087 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 11 October 2012 - 13:31

The 2007 £49m FIA fine has been found to be tax deductible, in an appeal case of HMRC vs McLaren.
Thats Sergio's Salary sorted :cool:


Nice work.

#2976 Kvothe

Kvothe
  • Member

  • 6,813 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 11 October 2012 - 13:40

Ok Just copied and pasted some relevant bits:

McLaren Racing Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners

2012 WL 4738935

MCLAREN RACING LIMITED
Appellant
- and -
THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY'S
Respondents
REVENUE & CUSTOMS

[The points of Law it addressed]
Section 74(1) TA 1988 provides that in computing trading profits no sum shall be deducted in respect of:
"(a) any disbursements or expenses, not being money wholly and exclusively laid out or expended for the purposes of the trade or profession; ...
"(e) any loss not connected with or arising out of the trade or profession."
7. HMRC contend that the £32 million paid by  McLaren falls within one or both of these prohibitions.
8. These separate prohibitions played mixed roles in the cases to which we referred.

Ratio Decendi:

I prefer the first formulation. That is because: (1) it was an ordinary part of McLaren's activities to seek information on its competitors' designs and strategy; (2) employing other teams' employees, and correspondingly taking steps to ensure that the damage which could result as the result of an employee defecting, were part of that activity; (3) Renault did the same; and (4) the WMSC held that  McLaren, by the activities of its employees, had obtained a sporting advantage - namely an advantage in the activity which gave rise to its income. I do not regard any contractual prohibition in Mr Coughlan's contract as conclusive of  McLaren's trade. In my view the profit making activity carried on by  McLaren was not limited to acting within the confines of the Concorde agreement and could include "cheating". That activity was its trade.

Therefore in my opinion the impugned activities could form part of McLaren's trade, and, since I cannot believe that attempting to obtain a sporting advantage was not for the purposes of the trade, I find they were undertaken wholly and exclusively for the purposes of that trade.
As a result unless it can be said that (a) the policy of the rule under which the penalty was imposed shows that the penalty was in the nature of a personal punishment and (b) there is a public policy argument which requires the penalty not to be shared with the general body of taxpayers, I must hold that the penalty was incurred for the purpose of the trade.

The WMSC gave no consideration to the quantification of the commercial effects of McLaren's action. I therefore accept that, although the comparison with Renault indicates that a penalty was levied only because  McLaren had in some way used the information, the fine was not assessed so as to redress any advantage obtained by  McLaren: it was not compensatory or designed to confiscate  McLaren's advantage.

Thus, in my view, the penalty was a commercial penalty designed to affect McLaren in its commercial activity. It was not of a like nature with a statutory penalty designed to be suffered by an individual. It shared with criminal penalties the object of deterrence, but its motivating policy was not principally to punish  McLaren in its person.
I conclude that para (1)(a) does not apply to prohibit the deduction of the penalty.

118. Did the loss arise out of the trade? The loss arose from McLaren's trade because it was intimately bound up with its only source of income. There was no difference in quality between the loss of points (and thus the loss of gross income) and the obligation to make the payment. Both had the same source; both arose from  McLaren's trade.
119. The policy considerations are the same as those in relation to (1)(a) above.
120. As a result I conclude that paragraph (1)(e) does not apply


Edited by Kvothe, 11 October 2012 - 13:40.


#2977 Kvothe

Kvothe
  • Member

  • 6,813 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 11 October 2012 - 13:41

The 2007 £49m FIA fine has been found to be tax deductible, in an appeal case of HMRC vs McLaren.
Thats Sergio's Salary sorted :cool:


Actually £32 million :p

#2978 JRizzle86

JRizzle86
  • Member

  • 2,087 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 11 October 2012 - 13:44

Actually £32 million :p


Is the £32 million, the fine without tax though?

#2979 Kvothe

Kvothe
  • Member

  • 6,813 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 11 October 2012 - 13:46

Is the £32 million, the fine without tax though?

125. In framing the penalty the President made it clear that while McLaren would not be excluded from the championship, a very substantial fine would be imposed calculated as the difference between $100 million and the value of the Constructors Championship points lost for 2007; which came out at the £32 million to which this appeal relates.



Advertisement

#2980 JRizzle86

JRizzle86
  • Member

  • 2,087 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 11 October 2012 - 13:48

I am under the assumption HMRC taxed them on top of the fine.

Edited by JRizzle86, 11 October 2012 - 13:48.


#2981 Kvothe

Kvothe
  • Member

  • 6,813 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 11 October 2012 - 13:52

I am under the assumption HMRC taxed them on top of the fine.


I don't quite follow you?



#2982 JRizzle86

JRizzle86
  • Member

  • 2,087 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 11 October 2012 - 13:56

I don't quite follow you?


To be honest i don't understand complexities of tax deduction. I was under the assumption if it is tax deductible therefore McLaren have been taxed more than they should have, therefore they were taxed on top of the original fine.

#2983 loki0420

loki0420
  • Member

  • 409 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 11 October 2012 - 14:03

If you break the law, fines etc are normally not allowed as business expenditure that you can get tax relief on.

Not sure about this case, but there must have been something in the £49m fine's wording that meant it wasn't the same as, say, a speeding ticket, which is not allowable.

And yes, I am an accountant. :blush:

PS This might help http://news.bbc.co.u...000/9759000.stm

Expenses incurred aren't taxable and are deducted from overall profit. Let's say that Mclaren's profit was $200 million dollars and the corporation tax was set at 20%. Mclaren would have to pay a tax bill of $40 million. HMRC would argue that the fine wasn't a tax deductible expense because it's a penalty rather than an expense. It seems that Mclaren won the case which means they can include it as an expense so they can deduct it from their overall profit. Using my figures that would mean that the company's overall profit would be $151 so the tax bill would only be $30.2 million giving them a tax saving of $9.8 million.

Thank you guys, looks like i'm hopeless in all this economic stuff and for sure i don't understand Britain's tax system or what HRMC is, but you made it more clear. :up:

#2984 Kvothe

Kvothe
  • Member

  • 6,813 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 11 October 2012 - 14:05

To be honest i don't understand complexities of tax deduction. I was under the assumption if it is tax deductible therefore McLaren have been taxed more than they should have, therefore they were taxed on top of the original fine.


I think Andy may have confused pounds with dollars which at a very rough guess would make us both correct.

My tax law isn't great either but if it was originally 49 million the court would have dealt with that figure when assessing whether the penalty itself was tax deductible.

Edited by Kvothe, 11 October 2012 - 14:06.


#2985 ForeverF1

ForeverF1
  • RC Forum Host

  • 6,472 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 11 October 2012 - 14:18

Because inter-team espionage is rife and the norm in F1, the fine can be classed as a business expense, therefore Tax deductible.

#2986 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 6,071 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 11 October 2012 - 14:45

The 2007 £49m FIA fine has been found to be tax deductible, in an appeal case of HMRC vs McLaren.
Thats Sergio's Salary sorted :cool:


Ha nice one! :lol:

I take it Ron has faxed this image on to Max?

Posted Image

#2987 ForeverF1

ForeverF1
  • RC Forum Host

  • 6,472 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 11 October 2012 - 14:50

Ha nice one! :lol:

I take it Ron has faxed this image on to Max?


Made me chuckle, but, back to the MP4-27 please.

#2988 Mc_Silver

Mc_Silver
  • Member

  • 2,145 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 11 October 2012 - 17:45

The 2007 £49m FIA fine has been found to be tax deductible, in an appeal case of HMRC vs McLaren.
Thats Sergio's Salary sorted :cool:


LOL, it is good news for Macca :up:

#2989 Anonymous

Anonymous
  • Member

  • 2,948 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 11 October 2012 - 17:51

http://img2.auto-mot...959a-636338.jpg
http://img1.auto-mot...83e2-636379.jpg

#2990 Mc_Silver

Mc_Silver
  • Member

  • 2,145 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 11 October 2012 - 17:54

http://www.formula1....2/10/13902.html

“I think we go into this race with better certainty about the car and with some performance upgrades we expect to be on par with the Red Bulls, but you never know what everybody else is doing - which is what makes it so exciting,” he concluded.


Hopefully, we will be be to extract full potential of the car this weekend.

#2991 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,285 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 11 October 2012 - 17:55

Because inter-team espionage is rife and the norm in F1, the fine can be classed as a business expense, therefore Tax deductible.

:lol:

#2992 wrcva

wrcva
  • Member

  • 978 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 11 October 2012 - 18:25

In my view the profit making activity carried on by  McLaren was not limited to acting within the confines of the Concorde agreement and could include "cheating". That activity was its trade.


... brilliant argument for F1 competition in it's purest form. After what Flav and the company pulled and got away with in Singapore, this is pretty fair. At least industrial espionage cannot harm another person/driver...

#2993 grunge

grunge
  • Member

  • 4,266 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 11 October 2012 - 21:09

A comparison between the RB and Lotus/Mclaren/Ferrari style exhausts.

Posted Image

Chuckjr brought this up at F1tech forums that the RB duct is much more circular leading to the exit and the hump.The F/M/L design is much more sharp edged..i wonder why...any ideas Andy?



#2994 BigCHrome

BigCHrome
  • Member

  • 4,049 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 11 October 2012 - 21:20

Andy probably knows but he has no interest in telling us.

Also I feel like the nose is different here in Korea?

Edited by BigCHrome, 11 October 2012 - 21:26.


#2995 grunge

grunge
  • Member

  • 4,266 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 11 October 2012 - 21:39

Andy probably knows but he has no interest in telling us.

Also I feel like the nose is different here in Korea?

Yup.the pylons definitely look different

Posted Image

#2996 OoxLox

OoxLox
  • Member

  • 436 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 11 October 2012 - 21:51

LOL, it is good news for Macca :up:


Not so great news for the rest of us working saps in the UK who just get it deducted at source without the help of expensive tax lawyers. Every penny saved by rich b*****ds ends up coming out of our pockets. Still, it's worth my £1 per year contribution to the deduction to imagine Max's face when he sees the news  ;)

#2997 OwenC93

OwenC93
  • Member

  • 1,850 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 11 October 2012 - 21:52

One of them isn't fully assembled.

#2998 ElDictatore

ElDictatore
  • Member

  • 855 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 12 October 2012 - 02:04

McLaren has a rasping exhaust sound in FP1. Maybe something going on there

According to Ted K, McLaren have re-profiled the exhaust exits slightly which may be a contributory factor to this unique sound.



#2999 jrg19

jrg19
  • Member

  • 6,118 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 12 October 2012 - 02:27

Looking pretty good, Lewis quickest after quite a few laps.

Advertisement

#3000 Mc_Silver

Mc_Silver
  • Member

  • 2,145 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 12 October 2012 - 02:34

Lewis looks on it, did his best lap right at the end of the session with tyres which have done 23 laps. Hopefully he can keep it up :up: Red Bull and Ferrari are also pretty quick here

Edited by Mc_Silver, 12 October 2012 - 02:35.