2021 Cost Cap Rumours and Speculation

[diffuser]

400k or 2.2m, both minor breaches in the eyes of the FIA. I don’t think it would make one lick of difference this year either way when Red Bull leads the WCC by nearly 200 points.

You could make a different argument about last year but there were bigger problems than this affecting last year’s results.

And again, I say this as someone whose most disliked driver on the grid is Max.

If the cap wasn’t effective at least one of the other 9 teams would’ve tried to breach it.

It's just this constant BS with them. It's never "just the evidence" they need to add some BS for their fans to cling onto.


Look at the same report for AMR:

Aston Martin were found to have incorrectly excluded and/or adjusted costs pertaining to the building of their new headquarters, new F1 simulator, wind tunnel fees, R&D tax credit, a signing bonus cost, use of transferable components, used inventories, service desk costs, cost of catering services at their headquarters, costs of desks and chairs, sponsor services and outsourced personnel services.

The team must therefore pay a financial penalty of $450,000 within 30 days of the date of execution of the ABA, plus bear the cost incurred by the Cost Cap Administration.

To the point and that's it. no sob stories about the dog eating thier lunch and stuff.

[Zynerji]

People are going to lose their minds when RBR show up in Brazil with 2023 cars that get billed to the 2022 budget, and are able to have an advantage in spending next year!

[diffuser]

The one thing the AMR article on F1 team page got that that the RBR article didn't was ..
"there is no accusation or evidence that AMR has sought or obtained any undue advantage as a result of the breach," said the FIA on Friday in Mexico City.

So there is evidence.

[tpe]

In 2022, a $10k USD, you can build a multi-teraflop desktop CFD computer for your home.

I never understood how these aero engineers are prevented from doing "studies" at home, then bringing that knowledge to the office, and re-create their findings there.

Or, how you can prohibit one team to run a simulation using 1000s cores in the cloud paid by a sponsor.
Seriously.

Not actual car designs tho, that would be illegal. How about just case studies on different things? Generative ML computer-only designs would not be a technical foul to the regulations, but they could be provided to a team and so that they can just consume the philosophies that are presented, and digest them into their F1 cars. Maybe that triggers a request for a specific case study by the teams, like how to retain X while instituting Y.

It seems like an AMD, Oracle or DarkTrace lile sponsorship would include things just like this.

We go topic, for sure.
But being illegal doesn't mean it's not possible. And even worse, I cannot see how this could be policed.
Or if you buy a few 100s of Threadrippers with a few hundred GPUs for your personnel...

But this is for another topic.

[west52keep64]

Can someone explain to me what interest the FIA has in telling us Red Bull "would have" broken the cap by ~400k and not the millions they have factually broken it by IF their tax break wasnt a fairly tale?

What purpose does it serve except to justify the non penalty and help people mentally connect that non penalty to the lower amount?

My guess is it was one of the conditions RBR stipulated to accept the ABA.

[west52keep64]

Love that you picked the word out of a dictionary, rather than what the word means in the tax world

https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/tolley/tax ... ax-credits

"For example, these rules apply where claimants:

provide a service for low rates of payment"

RB receive a 13.5% Tax cut from the British Government to due research and development being carried out in Britain

The notional income is tax they haven't received yet but will get in the future due to the tax credit

RB overspent by 400,000 pounds in 2021. Thats it.

Now go and cry into the sand RB haters

You've linked a page that talks about personal income tax credits which are being replaced by universal credit in the UK benefits system... that's got literally nothing to do with this. I suspect you found that page by googling the word "Notional" and "Tax Credits". So well done for successfully using google, but it's go no relevance to this case. Nice try though.

EDIT: For avoidance of doubt, I suspect the tax relief they are applying for is this: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/corporation ... -companies

Nothing to do with the link you provided. I suggest if you don't understand these matters, you shouldn't comment.

[Gooch]

The one thing the AMR article on F1 team page got that that the RBR article didn't was ..
"there is no accusation or evidence that AMR has sought or obtained any undue advantage as a result of the breach," said the FIA on Friday in Mexico City.

So there is evidence.

Well, it’s a fact that the Cost Cap Administration found Red Bull at least 400k over once they had corrected RB’s documentation. It would be hard to claim that is not an unfair advantage when no other team has done it and RB is being penalized for it in the same report.

By all accounts AM didn’t actually breach the cap (would love to know how close they were) and just screwed up their documentation.

[Dee]

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/corporation ... -rd-relief

Companies get r and d notional tax credits, just like the ones stated in AM's statement

[MadMax]

Horner is such a stirrer, specifically saying they changed the rules after they submitted to discredit the FIA. There should be a formal reprimand for him.

Simple response to that is: they changed the rules for everyone and everyone else managed to meet the budget cap.

[MadMax]

Where are the forum users that support Red Bull 's position, why they think they didn't get a competitive advantage and their justification for it. The details coming out just don't look good for Red Bull.

They're too busy rubbing their hands and saying "yeah, Max won!".

Asterisks are cheap. Certainly no more than $1.8m, anyway.

[Dee]

You literally haven't got a clue what you are talking about

You can't see reality due to your hate blinding you

The FIA statement says in black and white that RB's final amount is 432,000 approx

They did not inlcude the tax credit correctly

That is it

Anything else said by anyone else is a lie

Alight, I'll be putting you on the block list after this. But simply put, no you are wrong.

Red Bull appear to be applying for corporate tax relief for research and development performed in the UK. The public ABA release seems to acknowledge that they have not yet been granted this tax relief. Similar to the cost cap, it's a fairly complex application either various things being included/excluded. You can read about it here if you like https://www.gov.uk/guidance/corporation ... -companies

It seems clear this tax relief has not yet been fully realised, and it certainly hasn't been realised for the 2021 reporting period even if it applies to activities performed in in that period.

RBR went over the cost cap by £1,864,000 i.e., 1.6%, that's a fact that's set out in the ABA.
https://i.imgur.com/2VY5gcD.png

You can read the public release here: https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... 6.32_1.pdf

I've given you the information, you'll either accept it or continue this nonsense. Either way I don't care.

Love that you block because you can't stand over your own points

What you shared was a tweet that edited words

FIA's actual words were

"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 (0.37%)"

[west52keep64]

Love that you block because you can't stand over your own points

What you shared was a tweet that edited words

FIA's actual words were

"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 (0.37%)"

It's a screenshot from the official FIA document, it has not been edited.

---

EDIT: Mods deleted my original post, no idea why, but I managed to retrieve it so adding it to this post as an edit in the hope the mods won't notice. Oh and the screenshot is from the document, it's not from a tweet and it hasn't been modified. There's a link to the official FIA doc on the official FIA website if you want to read it yourself.

Red Bull appear to be applying for corporate tax relief for research and development performed in the UK. The public ABA release seems to acknowledge that they have not yet been granted this tax relief. Similar to the cost cap, it's a fairly complex application either various things being included/excluded. You can read about it here if you like https://www.gov.uk/guidance/corporation ... -companies

It seems clear this tax relief has not yet been fully realised, and it certainly hasn't been realised for the 2021 reporting period even if it applies to activities performed in in that period.

RBR went over the cost cap by £1,864,000 i.e., 1.6%, that's a fact that's set out in the ABA.



You can read the public release here: https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... 6.32_1.pdf

[johnny comelately]

It was bad management by Horner.

[Dee]

Love that you block because you can't stand over your own points

What you shared was a tweet that edited words

FIA's actual words were

"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 (0.37%)"

It's a screenshot from the official FIA document, it has not been edited.

Notional is a specific accounting term, not what you linked on a normal dictionary

[wogx]

I don't get that "MuLtI YeAr AdVaNtAgE!!11!1" bit

Is cheating worth the penalty? Yes, it appears so if it allows you to secure a championship or two.

Of course, timing your cheating is key - you get more bang for your cheating buck if you do it at the start of a new regulation set because you get a head start. Cheating in years 2, 3 or 4 will give you progressively less bang for your cheating buck because the teams naturally tend to close up over time.

BY doing it during the design/development phase of the new regulations, RBR have stolen a march on their competitors which might be very difficult to overcome.

Having said all of that, I wouldn't cheat. Everyone knows you cheated and everyone has an asterisk next your results even if the official result doesn't. Those of us with longer memories still consider that Schumacher cheated in his attempts to win titles, even if officially he is held up as one of the GOAT candidates.

They could only believe in their CFD's/VTT simulations. They didn't saw any other cars, they could only rely on their engineers' ideas. IMO overspending during this season could be more advantageous nowadays - it's now possible to follow the development of 9 other teams every raceweek, reverse engineer their cars, simulate their concepts for their own design, etc.

We saw what Mercedes did last winter - simulations are just simulations. In the worst case RB could have ended up in the midfield + received a penalty too.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/why- ... s/7733148/