Jump to content


Photo
* * - - - 24 votes

Red Bull made "minor breach" of budget cap in 2021 [split] [Update: RBR accepts $7m fine and 10% reduction in wind-tunnel and CFD time]


  • Please log in to reply
10033 replies to this topic

#10001 Bliman

Bliman
  • Member

  • 9,956 posts
  • Joined: April 16

Posted 29 March 2023 - 16:08

Parts, not spare parts. A car part doesn't last all season, but you knew that..

So why do you exclude the parts then?



Advertisement

#10002 UncleSam

UncleSam
  • Member

  • 152 posts
  • Joined: September 19

Posted 29 March 2023 - 16:21

So why do you exclude the parts then?


Not exclude but include. You pointed out that some cost outside the cap do not eat, equally inside don't either. https://www.forbes.c...sh=59d105004bb7

#10003 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 27,293 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 29 March 2023 - 16:23

How much do cars, parts, equipment, inventory etc eat?

Exactly. You're getting the hang of it now.



#10004 Bliman

Bliman
  • Member

  • 9,956 posts
  • Joined: April 16

Posted 29 March 2023 - 16:24

Not exclude but include. You pointed out that some cost outside the cap do not eat, equally inside don't either. https://www.forbes.c...sh=59d105004bb7

I am not following you. Are you saying that parts are not included in the budget cap?



#10005 flyboym3

flyboym3
  • Member

  • 1,977 posts
  • Joined: July 21

Posted 29 March 2023 - 16:55

That is a lot of speculation and also in contradiction with the ABA. I was looking for some new facts presented by the UK hmrc tax body, apparently there are none. But to be fair i can understand you not trusting RB in this matter.

 

FYI from Dieter Renceken - but let me also explain my thought process bit better:

 

"The largest chunk of the overspend is believed by RacingNews365.com to relate to potential tax credits and reimbursements from the United Kingdom tax authorities - His Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC).

Known as Research and Development Expenditure Credit (RDEC), it can be claimed by contractors who have been hired by a larger firm for R&D work and have either received a grant or subsidy or the expenditure is greater than an aid cap on the scheme.

Calculated at 13% of qualifying R&D expenditure, some of the credit is able to be used to get rid of some tax liabilities.

Red Bull are believed to have expected a rebate from HMRC, but this did not materialise, adding the $1.4 million to the budget for the year.

However, RacingNews365.com understands that the situation is fluid and if Red Bull are able to prove they were expecting some sort of rebate from HMRC, the FIA will look leniently on this figure."

 

This reads to say it doesn't matter to FIA that RBR rebate got rejected by HMRC as long as they were expecting a rebate.

I can only hope this treatment is consistent with the other teams.

 

If we re-state RBR's 13 breaches for context:

 

1. Overstated excluded costs pursuant to Article 3.1(a) of the Financial Regulations (concerning catering services);
2. Costs pursuant to Article 3.1(w) of the Financial Regulations (concerning consideration and associated employer’s social security contributions);
3. Costs pursuant to Article 3.1(h)(i) of the Financial Regulations (in respect of Non-F1 Activities), as those costs had already been offset within Total Costs of the Reporting Group;
4. Costs pursuant to Article 3.1(k) of the Financial Regulations (in respect of bonus and associated employer’s social security contributions);
5. Understatement of Relevant Costs in respect of a gain on disposal of fixed assets by failing to make the necessary upwards adjustment;
6. Costs pursuant to Article 3.1(q) of the Financial Regulations (concerning apprenticeship levies);
7. Costs pursuant to Article 3.1(h)(ii)(i) of the Financial Regulations (concerning consideration and associated employer’s social security contributions);
8. Understatement of Relevant Costs in respect of provisions set forth by Article 4.1(a)(i) of the Financial Regulations (concerning the cost of use of Power Units);
9. Costs pursuant to Article 3.1(h) (i) of the Financial Regulations (concerning consideration and associated employer’s social security contributions);
10. Understatement of Relevant Costs in respect of provisions set forth by Article 4.1(f)(i)(B) of the Financial Regulations (concerning use of inventories);
11. Clerical error in respect of RBR’s calculation of certain costs re-charged to it by Red Bull Power Trains Limited;
12. Certain travel costs pursuant to Article 3.1® of the Financial Regulations;
13. Costs of maintenance pursuant to Article 3.1(i) of the Financial Regulations.

 

"Inaccurately excluded and/or adjusted costs amounting to a total of £5,607,000."

 

Then the FIA report contains this paragraph:

 

"The FIA acknowledges that had RBR applied the correct treatment within its Full Year Reporting Documentation of RBR’s Notional Tax Credit within its 2021 submission of a value of £1,431,348, it would have been considered by the Cost Cap Administration to be in compliance with Article 4.1(b) of the Regulations and therefore RBR’s Relevant Costs for the 2021 Reporting Period would have in fact exceeded the 2021 Cost Cap by £432,652"

 

Given that context are we really supposed to believe RBR forgot to claim it?

 

I find it strange how the FIA even start this sentence using the term acknowledgement when RBR DID NOT WANT to claim £1.4m rebate despite doing all these aggressive interpretations below they were foul of (note the use of their word notional i.e. speculative):

 

I wish we had some real investigative journalism in F1 where someone would ask FIA/Horner what the situation is on this rebate and get a straight answer.

 

IMO FIA helped cover up on behalf of RBR and gave them suggestive ideas to reduce the discrepancy.

Straight out of their 2021 playbook so they were never going to conclude any different in the ABA.


Edited by flyboym3, 29 March 2023 - 17:24.


#10006 UncleSam

UncleSam
  • Member

  • 152 posts
  • Joined: September 19

Posted 29 March 2023 - 16:56

What I'm saying is this: a company with £ 230m spending of which £ 118m falls under the cost cap had 100% of it's employees catering cost in the cost cap while probably only half of those employees were working for departments that fall under the cost cap. Departments like finance, marketing, powertrains, RB17 road car etc etc do not fall under the budget cap but their catering costs were included. Since nothing could be changed to the submission there looks to be an overspend on paper which isn't there in reality. Let FIA fill the RB cost cap papers the right way and they're under due to lower catering cost (only cost cap employees) and spare parts by the new post submission rule

Edited by UncleSam, 29 March 2023 - 16:59.


#10007 Rumblestrip

Rumblestrip
  • Member

  • 1,452 posts
  • Joined: December 20

Posted 29 March 2023 - 17:09

I'm not entirely sure why the overspend is being discussed again. Have there been any new developments?



#10008 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 27,293 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 29 March 2023 - 17:11

RB17 was announced in July. RB had a Honda engine in 2021.

Keep it coming though UncleSam, it’s all very amusing.

PS the reason they were all included was because Red Bull absolutely absurdly took the approach that they could all be excluded - so never bothered to keep track of who was eating what. This is such obvious nonsense it really undermine the FIA’s conclusion of acting in good faith - only a genuine idiot could, in good faith, consider all catering costs to be excludable (and I don’t think Red Bull are idiots).

So if I were trying to make Red Bull’s behaviour look less bad, catering is the last area I would repeatedly highlight.

#10009 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 27,293 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 29 March 2023 - 17:13

I'm not entirely sure why the overspend is being discussed again. Have there been any new developments?

Horner whinged that everyone had been very mean about the team over the whole thing in an interview recently.

Why he of all people would want to bring it up is beyond me. I can only think he’s getting high on his own supply, and genuinely thinks people will actually go ‘oh, poor red bull’

#10010 Rumblestrip

Rumblestrip
  • Member

  • 1,452 posts
  • Joined: December 20

Posted 29 March 2023 - 17:16

Horner whinged that everyone had been very mean about the team over the whole thing in an interview recently.

Why he of all people would want to bring it up is beyond me. I can only think he’s getting high on his own supply, and genuinely thinks people will actually go ‘oh, poor red bull’

 

I meant specifically why the costs themselves were being discussed again, instead of Horners allegations. Just confused that's all, I'll move along.



#10011 UncleSam

UncleSam
  • Member

  • 152 posts
  • Joined: September 19

Posted 29 March 2023 - 17:27

RB17 was announced in July. RB had a Honda engine in 2021.

Keep it coming though UncleSam, it’s all very amusing.

PS the reason they were all included was because Red Bull absolutely absurdly took the approach that they could all be excluded - so never bothered to keep track of who was eating what. This is such obvious nonsense it really undermine the FIA’s conclusion of acting in good faith - only a genuine idiot could, in good faith, consider all catering costs to be excludable (and I don’t think Red Bull are idiots).

So if I were trying to make Red Bull’s behaviour look less bad, catering is the last area I would repeatedly highlight.

RB17 work began before announcement. RBPT was founded on Feb 16th 2021. And yes, they were a bit too optimistic to exclude the whole catering bill cause they had free meals and drinks as employee benefit. But that doesn't mean their catering spendings on employees that fall under the cap is any different compared to other teams actual catering spend for cap employees

Edited by UncleSam, 29 March 2023 - 17:28.


#10012 flyboym3

flyboym3
  • Member

  • 1,977 posts
  • Joined: July 21

Posted 29 March 2023 - 17:30

Oh for Heaven's sake... 

 

Source: https://inews.co.uk/...ercedes-2232925

 

 

Horner says that another team contacted Red Bull's sponsors about the breach, saying they (the sponsors) were going to have their reputations affected by the team's actions.  :|  :well:  :mad:  :evil:

“if we had a British driver like a certain team in Brackley. We are too easily seen as the bad guys.”

 

One thing I find interesting is his interview after now winning a few in a row he yearns for the respect that comes with winning but its not quite forthcoming.

I think he's not reading the room correctly if he attributes that lack of respect purely down to not having a British driver.


Edited by flyboym3, 29 March 2023 - 17:31.


#10013 Ivanhoe

Ivanhoe
  • RC Forum Host

  • 17,634 posts
  • Joined: November 15

Posted 29 March 2023 - 17:36

PS the reason they were all included was because Red Bull absolutely absurdly took the approach that they could all be excluded -

I doubt if we are in a position to make such a claim without knowing the real details Gareth. I worked as a tax counsel and it was not uncommon to have discussions with the tax authorities about valuations and deductions on several items per tax return. All made in good faith, which could and did lead to corrections, but without penalties. This might be comparable, we really have far too little information to make claims that Red Bull were acting in bad faith. Not keeping track of who was eating when and what, while it could give them an advantage for the cost cap, sounds silly and sloppy to me, rather than acting in bad faith. Same for the tax credit. Also, some of their exclusions were so evidently against the rules (like the sick leave), that I really doubt they acted in bad faith. It really looks to me they made a bit of a mess with their book keeping and interpretation of the rules.



#10014 Broekschaap

Broekschaap
  • Member

  • 890 posts
  • Joined: September 16

Posted 29 March 2023 - 17:43

FYI from Dieter Renceken - but let me also explain my thought process bit better:.........

 

..............going to conclude any different in the ABA.

Like you i would like some serious investigating journalism into how the RDEC was handled by Red Bull and also the other teams. I said before this is in my opinion a element that teams can play around with and use to push budget into future years simply by recognizing it in later years.

 

If i had to make a guess i think Red Bull was doing just that, so indeed no mistakes. By not recognizing it in 2021 they could keep keep it in their piggy bank for future years. But as said that is me speculating. However unlike you i see no reason to doubt the sincerity of the CCA. So i accept Red Bull was wrong on 13 points, and also that the CCA would have accepted the RDEC if reported correctly and therefore it was a mitigating factor.

 

But we ended up in this discussion because you mentioned facts presented by the tax authority and i was curious about this given my intrest for this subject.



#10015 Ivanhoe

Ivanhoe
  • RC Forum Host

  • 17,634 posts
  • Joined: November 15

Posted 29 March 2023 - 18:00

Maybe Red Bull weren’t sure about the majority of their exclusions and kept the notional tax credit as a joker outside their accounts, as a possible set off in case FIA didn’t accept (all) their exclusions. I agree that it looks like teams can play with the timing of the tax credit and we can’t rule out that Red Bull strategically kept the tax credit up their sleeve, to use as a mitigator in case FIA didn’t accept their filing and to have it available for future years if they did. In that case, they weren’t as silly and sloppy as I argued above, which seems more likely for such a professional organization.



#10016 flyboym3

flyboym3
  • Member

  • 1,977 posts
  • Joined: July 21

Posted 29 March 2023 - 18:39

Like you i would like some serious investigating journalism into how the RDEC was handled by Red Bull and also the other teams. I said before this is in my opinion a element that teams can play around with and use to push budget into future years simply by recognizing it in later years.

 

If i had to make a guess i think Red Bull was doing just that, so indeed no mistakes. By not recognizing it in 2021 they could keep keep it in their piggy bank for future years. But as said that is me speculating. However unlike you i see no reason to doubt the sincerity of the CCA. So i accept Red Bull was wrong on 13 points, and also that the CCA would have accepted the RDEC if reported correctly and therefore it was a mitigating factor.

 

But we ended up in this discussion because you mentioned facts presented by the tax authority and i was curious about this given my intrest for this subject.

 

 

Maybe Red Bull weren’t sure about the majority of their exclusions and kept the notional tax credit as a joker outside their accounts, as a possible set off in case FIA didn’t accept (all) their exclusions. I agree that it looks like teams can play with the timing of the tax credit and we can’t rule out that Red Bull strategically kept the tax credit up their sleeve, to use as a mitigator in case FIA didn’t accept their filing and to have it available for future years if they did. In that case, they weren’t as silly and sloppy as I argued above, which seems more likely for such a professional organization.

If it works like that, i.e. being able to 'piggy bank' something not approved - Renceken says HMRC said no and FIA using the term notional as late as Q4 2022 then doesn't that open up another can of worms?

 

If that's the case then what's to stop Coca-cola racing submiting a £3.3m tax rebate application to HMRC (full well knowing they've over egged the application and have not done anything nobody has ever done before for the R&D claim), then telling the FIA here you go we submitted this application to HMRC with this value so please accept this net-off from our budget submission.


Edited by flyboym3, 29 March 2023 - 18:41.


#10017 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 27,293 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 29 March 2023 - 18:49

we really have far too little information to make claims that Red Bull were acting in bad faith. Not keeping track of who was eating when and what, while it could give them an advantage for the cost cap, sounds silly and sloppy to me, rather than acting in bad faith.

It's not the failure to keep track, it's the exclusion of the entire expenditure.

 

If a client came and asked you if they could exclude free food given to employees for tax purposes, you'd tell them no and that no one had even bothered trying that since the 1980's.

 

I don't believe Red Bull genuinely believed the argument they put forward. The FIA did. Others are also welcome to believe it, too, of course. It's all subjective opinion and mine is worth just as much as anyone else's on that score.

 

Just for me, personally, I can't believe that in 2021 a sophisticated company could possibly genuinely think "hey, the food we give employees, we don't have to treat that as part of their remuneration/benefits, right?".



#10018 Ivanhoe

Ivanhoe
  • RC Forum Host

  • 17,634 posts
  • Joined: November 15

Posted 29 March 2023 - 19:02

It's not the failure to keep track, it's the exclusion of the entire expenditure.

 

If a client came and asked you if they could exclude free food given to employees for tax purposes, you'd tell them no and that no one had even bothered trying that since the 1980's.

 

I don't believe Red Bull genuinely believed the argument they put forward. The FIA did. Others are also welcome to believe it, too, of course. It's all subjective opinion and mine is worth just as much as anyone else's on that score.

 

Just for me, personally, I can't believe that in 2021 a sophisticated company could possibly genuinely think "hey, the food we give employees, we don't have to treat that as part of their remuneration/benefits, right?".

I agree that’s an absurd take of the rules Gareth, hence I said that I don’t understand that they didn’t keep track. But maybe they just tried, knowing they had the notional tax credit up their sleeve. 



#10019 Ivanhoe

Ivanhoe
  • RC Forum Host

  • 17,634 posts
  • Joined: November 15

Posted 29 March 2023 - 19:04

If it works like that, i.e. being able to 'piggy bank' something not approved - Renceken says HMRC said no and FIA using the term notional as late as Q4 2022 then doesn't that open up another can of worms?

 

If that's the case then what's to stop Coca-cola racing submiting a £3.3m tax rebate application to HMRC (full well knowing they've over egged the application and have not done anything nobody has ever done before for the R&D claim), then telling the FIA here you go we submitted this application to HMRC with this value so please accept this net-off from our budget submission.

But that’s how I think it works flyboy. They speak of a ‘notional’ tax credit, which as I understand (I’m not a native speaker) is an estimate. This also sounds logical, as this is how it also works in accounting.



Advertisement

#10020 Broekschaap

Broekschaap
  • Member

  • 890 posts
  • Joined: September 16

Posted 29 March 2023 - 19:07

If it works like that, i.e. being able to 'piggy bank' something not approved - Renceken says HMRC said no and FIA using the term notional as late as Q4 2022 then doesn't that open up another can of worms?

 

If that's the case then what's to stop Coca-cola racing submiting a £3.3m tax rebate application to HMRC (full well knowing they've over egged the application and have not done anything nobody has ever done before for the R&D claim), then telling the FIA here you go we submitted this application to HMRC with this value so please accept this net-off from our budget submission.

Interesting can of worms isn't it?



#10021 Ivanhoe

Ivanhoe
  • RC Forum Host

  • 17,634 posts
  • Joined: November 15

Posted 29 March 2023 - 19:08

Interesting can of worms isn't it?

Don’t know, it’s just a timing issue and you need the accountant to sign off on the amount anyway. 



#10022 Broekschaap

Broekschaap
  • Member

  • 890 posts
  • Joined: September 16

Posted 29 March 2023 - 19:20

Don’t know, it’s just a timing issue and you need the accountant to sign off on the amount anyway. 

You just make me realize i should do better things with my time then discuss the budget cap :rotfl:

 

I think it is interesting because it made it possible to trasfer funds into 2021 from years before. Obviously the trick works best in the first year when you can shift budget from a non budget cap year to the first budget cap year. After that you are more limited but it still can be handy.



#10023 New Britain

New Britain
  • Member

  • 7,687 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 29 March 2023 - 19:44

It's interesting that one team made 13 errors and you are absolutely convinced that it was a deliberate strategy to hide costs and there's no chance at all that there could be any misunderstandings or honest mistakes. Even when the FIA specifically say that the team acted honestly throughout.

Then another makes 12 errors and you can just brush it off as sloppiness or ignorance...

The FIA can't be this biased when investigating. They can't carry out a fair investigation if they treat 1 team different based on whether they are in a title fight or some kind of perceived past political games.

They need to look at the facts

Are you saying that it was NOT deliberate for Red Bull to skip doing the dry run and it was NOT deliberate for Red Bull to choose not to ask the CCA in advance if their 'aggressive' positions on expenses would be acceptable?

Was Red Bull just very forgetful?



#10024 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 44,619 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 29 March 2023 - 21:28

I am not following you. Are you saying that parts are not included in the budget cap?

 


Interesting question. Are parts that are made, but not used, in or out of the budget?

#10025 jacdaniel

jacdaniel
  • Member

  • 1,334 posts
  • Joined: April 19

Posted 29 March 2023 - 21:30

Are you saying that it was NOT deliberate for Red Bull to skip doing the dry run and it was NOT deliberate for Red Bull to choose not to ask the CCA in advance if their 'aggressive' positions on expenses would be acceptable?
Was Red Bull just very forgetful?


You're very clearly biased against Red Bull. You've admitted that Aston Martins errors were down to sloppiness or ignorance yet you are convinced that Red Bull deliberately had a strategy to hide costs.

The FIA investigated without bias and they completely disagree with you. And they have much more evidence and facts than we do.

Their official report rules out Red Bull acting in a dishonest way.

#10026 New Britain

New Britain
  • Member

  • 7,687 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 29 March 2023 - 21:42

You're very clearly biased against Red Bull. You've admitted that Aston Martins errors were down to sloppiness or ignorance yet you are convinced that Red Bull deliberately had a strategy to hide costs.

The FIA investigated without bias and they completely disagree with you. And they have much more evidence and facts than we do.

Their official report rules out Red Bull acting in a dishonest way.

Is this the same FIA that ruled that Max Verstappen won the 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix?

 

QED.



#10027 Bliman

Bliman
  • Member

  • 9,956 posts
  • Joined: April 16

Posted 29 March 2023 - 22:26

Interesting question. Are parts that are made, but not used, in or out of the budget?

As far as I know they are in the budget. But there are people here that will give you a better answer.



#10028 New Britain

New Britain
  • Member

  • 7,687 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 29 March 2023 - 22:49

Interesting question. Are parts that are made, but not used, in or out of the budget?

 

As far as I know they are in the budget. But there are people here that will give you a better answer.

The language as I read it is not exactly lucid, but the rules appear to categorise inventories as:

- Used: must be expensed in the year when first used

- Redundant: must be expensed in the year when declared redundant. If used in a future year, full cost must then be allocated to that future year.

- Unused: Must not be expensed in the year when first produced. I.e., you cannot make extras in a year when you have cap space, expense them that year, and then use them in a subsequent year without a cap hit in that subsequent year.



#10029 MikeTekRacing

MikeTekRacing
  • Member

  • 11,994 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 30 March 2023 - 00:15

Is this the same FIA that ruled that Max Verstappen won the 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix?

QED.


Thay QED proves your bias.
Still sour, sad

#10030 Ivanhoe

Ivanhoe
  • RC Forum Host

  • 17,634 posts
  • Joined: November 15

Posted 30 March 2023 - 06:57

Please leave AD21 out of this thread and try to discuss without pointing to each others bias. No one is fully objective.



#10031 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 27,293 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 30 March 2023 - 08:07


Interesting question. Are parts that are made, but not used, in or out of the budget?

iirc parts that are made only count once a part of that same spec makes it on to the car in official on track action (so a practice, qualifying, sprint race, or race). Once that happens all parts of that spec that have been made or are made that season count towards the cap, along with the costs of developing the new spec.

This was posited as the big reason why RB’s new floor, that was ready mid season last year, never made it in the car - they couldn’t absorb the cost in 22 (and didn’t need the performance), so left it off.

#10032 New Britain

New Britain
  • Member

  • 7,687 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 30 March 2023 - 08:17

Please leave AD21 out of this thread and try to discuss without pointing to each others bias. No one is fully objective.

The point, which I presume is allowed to be expressed here, is that the FIA is biased - not necessarily for or against any particular team a priori, but biased towards wishing to minimise public disputes, legal challenges, and the risk that its ability to regulate the sport will be questioned. That is of course not its only motivation; it must perform a simulacrum of enforcing its own rules, but we have seen time and again (in the post-Mosley era) that it will intervene on 'political' (perhaps one should say 'politicised') issues only when it absolutely must.

That mentality was what we saw at work in how the FIA treated Red Bull's breach of the cost cap. Their final report included emollient words designed to avoid embarrassing Red Bull any more than was unavoidable, wording that was no doubt negotiated with Red Bull.

For the FIA, in a very public and high-profile fashion, to have imposed anything beyond the most minimal possible penalty, especially in the cost cap's first year, strongly suggests that in fact they were very upset with how Red Bull had acted throughout the process and the underlying reality was worse than what has been disclosed.



#10033 New Britain

New Britain
  • Member

  • 7,687 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 30 March 2023 - 08:28

iirc parts that are made only count once a part of that same spec makes it on to the car in official on track action (so a practice, qualifying, sprint race, or race). Once that happens all parts of that spec that have been made or are made that season count towards the cap, along with the costs of developing the new spec.

This was posited as the big reason why RB’s new floor, that was ready mid season last year, never made it in the car - they couldn’t absorb the cost in 22 (and didn’t need the performance), so left it off.

Not sure how that would fit with this:

 

  1. (i)  If the accounting treatment of Inventories within Total Costs of the Reporting Group varies from the following requirements, the F1 Team must make an adjustment in the calculation of Relevant Costs to reflect these requirements:

    1. (i)  the cost of an item of Used Inventories must be recognised in full as an expense in the Full Year Reporting Period in which it was first used in respect of the F1 Team’s F1 Cars;

    2. (ii)  the cost of an item of Unused Inventories must not be recognised in the Reporting Period; and

    3. (iii)  the cost of an item of Redundant Inventories (which has not been recognised in a previous Full Year Reporting Period pursuant to any other provision of this Article 4.1(f)(i)) must be recognised in full as an expense in the Reporting Period. Where practicable, the identification of Redundant Inventories must be carried out on an item-by-item basis. Otherwise, groups of similar items may be considered together.

and this:

 

  1. (i)  All costs in respect of Research and Development for F1 Activities must be included in Relevant Costs in the Reporting Period in which they are incurred.

  2. (ii)  If a Reporting Group Entity has deferred recognition of any costs in respect of Research and Development for F1 Activities to a subsequent Reporting Period, an adjustment must be made in the calculation of Relevant Costs to ensure such costs are recognised within the Reporting Period in which they are incurred.

 

?



#10034 New Britain

New Britain
  • Member

  • 7,687 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 30 March 2023 - 13:04

FYI from Dieter Renceken - but let me also explain my thought process bit better:

 

"The largest chunk of the overspend is believed by RacingNews365.com to relate to potential tax credits and reimbursements from the United Kingdom tax authorities - His Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC).

Known as Research and Development Expenditure Credit (RDEC), it can be claimed by contractors who have been hired by a larger firm for R&D work and have either received a grant or subsidy or the expenditure is greater than an aid cap on the scheme.

Calculated at 13% of qualifying R&D expenditure, some of the credit is able to be used to get rid of some tax liabilities.

Red Bull are believed to have expected a rebate from HMRC, but this did not materialise, adding the $1.4 million to the budget for the year.

However, RacingNews365.com understands that the situation is fluid and if Red Bull are able to prove they were expecting some sort of rebate from HMRC, the FIA will look leniently on this figure."

 

This reads to say it doesn't matter to FIA that RBR rebate got rejected by HMRC as long as they were expecting a rebate.

I can only hope this treatment is consistent with the other teams.

 

If we re-state RBR's 13 breaches for context:

 

1. Overstated excluded costs pursuant to Article 3.1(a) of the Financial Regulations (concerning catering services);
2. Costs pursuant to Article 3.1(w) of the Financial Regulations (concerning consideration and associated employer’s social security contributions);
3. Costs pursuant to Article 3.1(h)(i) of the Financial Regulations (in respect of Non-F1 Activities), as those costs had already been offset within Total Costs of the Reporting Group;
4. Costs pursuant to Article 3.1(k) of the Financial Regulations (in respect of bonus and associated employer’s social security contributions);
5. Understatement of Relevant Costs in respect of a gain on disposal of fixed assets by failing to make the necessary upwards adjustment;
6. Costs pursuant to Article 3.1(q) of the Financial Regulations (concerning apprenticeship levies);
7. Costs pursuant to Article 3.1(h)(ii)(i) of the Financial Regulations (concerning consideration and associated employer’s social security contributions);
8. Understatement of Relevant Costs in respect of provisions set forth by Article 4.1(a)(i) of the Financial Regulations (concerning the cost of use of Power Units);
9. Costs pursuant to Article 3.1(h) (i) of the Financial Regulations (concerning consideration and associated employer’s social security contributions);
10. Understatement of Relevant Costs in respect of provisions set forth by Article 4.1(f)(i)(B) of the Financial Regulations (concerning use of inventories);
11. Clerical error in respect of RBR’s calculation of certain costs re-charged to it by Red Bull Power Trains Limited;
12. Certain travel costs pursuant to Article 3.1® of the Financial Regulations;
13. Costs of maintenance pursuant to Article 3.1(i) of the Financial Regulations.

 

"Inaccurately excluded and/or adjusted costs amounting to a total of £5,607,000."

 

Then the FIA report contains this paragraph:

 

"The FIA acknowledges that had RBR applied the correct treatment within its Full Year Reporting Documentation of RBR’s Notional Tax Credit within its 2021 submission of a value of £1,431,348, it would have been considered by the Cost Cap Administration to be in compliance with Article 4.1(b) of the Regulations and therefore RBR’s Relevant Costs for the 2021 Reporting Period would have in fact exceeded the 2021 Cost Cap by £432,652"

 

Given that context are we really supposed to believe RBR forgot to claim it?

 

I find it strange how the FIA even start this sentence using the term acknowledgement when RBR DID NOT WANT to claim £1.4m rebate despite doing all these aggressive interpretations below they were foul of (note the use of their word notional i.e. speculative):

 

I wish we had some real investigative journalism in F1 where someone would ask FIA/Horner what the situation is on this rebate and get a straight answer.

 

IMO FIA helped cover up on behalf of RBR and gave them suggestive ideas to reduce the discrepancy.

Straight out of their 2021 playbook so they were never going to conclude any different in the ABA.

This has probably been mentioned before, but another possible explanation could be that Red Bull thought that they could BS the CCA into accepting their 2021 submission whilst intentionally holding back the tax credit as a joker which (if they did not need it for 2021) they might use for 2022. Then, when they saw that they were in trouble with the CCA for 2021, they pretended that they had innocently overlooked the credit and tried to use it, but even with the credit they still were in breach.