Corporate law Brisbane

Use of IRUs in a telecommunications capacity

HomePrivate: BlogLegal insightsUse of IRUs in a telecommunications capacity

by

reviewed by

Malcolm Burrows

Reading Time:

4–6 minutes

Indefeasible rights of use agreements (IRUs) are commonly used in telecommunications agreements for the supply of cable system capacity services.  IRUs have specific tax treatment under section 995.1 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) and are treated as capital expenditure for suppliers and customers.  Tax considerations play a central role in structuring IRUs. Below, we set out the key areas an IRU must cover to be tax compliant.

The structure of IRUs

Typical capacity agreements are structured as service agreements, whereas an IRU must be structured in the right way to be tax and accounting treated as an IRU.

The term of an IRU is usually around 15 years, during which time the supplier grants the customer exclusive access to capacity over a fibre system.  Unlike a standard capacity service agreement, typically the customer must pay the price upfront in order for the customer to have the rights to the system for the effective life of the asset and to gain the benefit of tax capital depreciation allowances which are not usually available with service agreements.

To assist in the treatment of the agreement as an IRU, the grant of access must be indefeasible and give the customer economic ownership rights over the network assets similar to those of the supplier.

What is indefeasibility?

The term indefeasible is used in property law and requires that the network asset is:

  • Identifiable: For the network asset to be identifiable, it must be within a specific fibre core, or over specific fibre strands within a certain core, or over a specific route or routes.
  • Fixed: The capacity must also be fixed.
  • Exclusive: The capacity or infrastructure must be for the exclusive use of the customer.

To be characterized as indefeasible, an IRU agreement usually:

  • does not include a right to terminate by either party; and
  • does not entitle the customer to refunds of any upfront payments.

Ownership rights over the network assets similar to those of the supplier

To capture economic ownership, an IRU usually contains the following:

  • Supplier has no obligation to provide maintenance.
  • No compensation for defective service without separate warranty provisions.
  • Customer must pay its share of the costs of uninstalling the network asset if it reaches end of life.
  • Customer is entitled to share in the proceeds of disposal of the network asset.
  • Customer is entitled to proceeds which arise from claims made against third parties in relation to the network asset.
  • Generally, no right to terminate the IRU, even where the supplier fails to make capacity available, though many IRUs do include termination rights.

Operations and maintenance services

Under standard capacity supply agreements, network maintenance, service levels and service credits are provided for the benefit of the customer.

Under an IRU, because the customer has the risk and benefit of ownership of the network asset, the customer technically has to maintain that system, however a work around can be created whereby the supplier provides maintenance and network upgrade services under an outsourcing arrangement which can be built into the IRU or form part of a separate agreement between the parties.

How fixed is the capacity?

Indefeasibility in an IRU means that fibre strands or routes need to be specified in the IRU. In commercial reality, though, it may not be possible to set this in stone.

Therefore, the IRU must include the capacity requirements that are not expected to change as well as make provision for scaling.

The business needs of a customer might require capacity on different routes at various times.  This can be covered by stating the fixed capacity requirements in the aggregate and the potential routes over which that capacity may be needed.  To activate a route, the operations and maintenance agreement can provide rights of the customer to trigger certain routes.

Another tricky scenario is where the network has not been built and indefeasibility is not fully present.  To cover this, specified point to point capacity can be specified with certain routes and strands being subject to a separate design process under a design and network build agreement.

Termination rights

In normal capacity service agreements, the customer has a right to terminate if the supplier fails to provide the capacity services and may include a refund of upfront payments.

To provide termination relief for the parties in these circumstances, the customer can be granted a put option that can be exercised by the customer where the supplier fails to provide the capacity which obligates the supplier to buy back the customer’s interest, resulting in a net refund.

Conversely, the supplier can be granted a call option that can be exercised by the Supplier in the event that the customer breaches the agreement, such as failure to pay, which then obligates the customer to sell its interest back for an amount that would be equal to the amounts outstanding.

Takeaways

IRUs are complicated and require a careful collaboration of legal, tax and commercial considerations, often necessitating the guidance of a legal professional who specialises in technology law.

Links and further references

Legislation

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth)

Further information about IRUs

If you need advice on IRUs, contact us for a confidential and obligation-free discussion:


Related insights about IRUs

  • Office of AI announced by Federal Government

    Office of AI announced by Federal Government

    On 15 July 2026, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese (Prime Minister) announced by media release an expansion of the Federal Government’s (Government) existing artificial intelligence (AI) governance framework, including the establishment of a new Office of AI as well as plans to legislate national standards governing large-scale data centres, AI training and the use of Australian…

    Read more …

  • AI businesses should have duty of care

    AI businesses should have duty of care

    In a recent interview with InnovationAus.com, Victorian Senator Michelle Ananda-Rajah (Senator) emphasised the need to adopt digital duty of care laws for artificial intelligence (AI) companies.[1]  As a representative of the ALP and former AI start-up founder, the Senator calls for the proposed digital duty of care to apply to AI companies.  If implemented, the…

    Read more …

  • Federal Court orders winding up of crypto mining investment scheme

    Federal Court orders winding up of crypto mining investment scheme

    The Federal Court of Australia delivered judgment in Australian Securities and Investments Commission v NGS Crypto Pty Ltd (No 5) [2025] FCA 1611, on 18 December 2025 ordering the winding up of two (2) cryptocurrency related entities after finding that they operated an unlicensed financial services business and an unregistered managed investment scheme in contravention…

    Read more …

  • Online Safety – is your online business a DIS or a RES?

    Online Safety – is your online business a DIS or a RES?

    Whether your online business has to comply with the obligations contained in the Online Safety Act 2021 (Cth) (OSA), and related standards and industry codes will largely depend on how your business is classified because of the functionality it provides to end users in Australia.

    Read more …

  • Bill to allow victims of AI deepfakes to sue for emotional damages

    Bill to allow victims of AI deepfakes to sue for emotional damages

    On 24 November 2025, Senator David Pocock introduced a private Senator’s bill, the Online Safety and Other Legislation Amendment (My Face, My Rights) Bill 2025 (Cth) (Bill) to amend the Online Safety Act 2021 (Cth) (Online Safety Act) and the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) (Privacy Act). 

    Read more …

  • Malcolm Burrows on ABC’s “Legal Eagles” segment – Deepfakes

    Malcolm Burrows on ABC’s “Legal Eagles” segment – Deepfakes

    On 3 December 2025, Malcolm Burrows appeared live on Katherine Feeney’s ABC Radio program, “Legal Eagles” as the Technology and Intellectual Property Lawyer to discuss the proposed amendments to the Online Safety Act 2021 (Cth) through the introduction of the Online Safety and other legislation Amendment (My Face Rights) Bill (Cth) 2025 (My Face Rights…

    Read more …

  • Federal Gov rules out copyright text and data mining exception for AI

    Federal Gov rules out copyright text and data mining exception for AI

    On 26 October 2025, the Attorney-General, Hon Michelle Rowland MP, published a media release reiterating that the current Federal Government will not introduce a text and data mining (TDM) exception to copyright infringement in the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) (Copyright Act).  The Attorney-General’s Department will instead engage in further consultations with members of the Copyright…

    Read more …

  • Australian Government announces a digital duty of care

    Australian Government announces a digital duty of care

    The Australian Government has announced that it will soon be introducing legislation to create a digital duty of care under the Online Safety Act 2021 (Cth) (Act) in response to findings from an independent Statutory Review of the Online Safety Act 2021 (Review).  The Honourable Anika Wells MP announced that “big tech” companies will soon…

    Read more …

  • Dundas Lawyers achieves SMB1001 gold level cyber security certification

    Dundas Lawyers achieves SMB1001 gold level cyber security certification

    On 14 November 2025 Dundas Lawyers achieved the Gold level of the SMB1001 cybersecurity standard.

    Read more …


Posted

in

,
Send this to a friend