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

  • Data breach compliance and response plans

    Data breach compliance and response plans

    Dundas Lawyers create tailored data breach response plans to ensure compliance with the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth). Plans include actions, registers, records, tests and tasks. Get an obligation-free and confidential discussion to learn more.

    Read more …

  • Are email trackers admissible as evidence?

    Are email trackers admissible as evidence?

    The Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) is silent, but the Court considers email trackers and read receipts as evidence in civil and intellectual property litigation. As seen in Jaffari v Grabowski [2013] NSWCA 114, sender’s receipt of confirmation of email relay is a matter for the recipient.

    Read more …

  • Is AI recognized as an inventor under the Patents Act 1990?

    Is AI recognized as an inventor under the Patents Act 1990?

    The ruling of Thaler v Commissioner of Patents [2021] FCA 879 has opened the door for artificial intelligence-created inventions to be eligible for patent protection. Learn more about the implications of this groundbreaking decision.

    Read more …

  • The Australian Cyber Law Map – overview

    The Australian Cyber Law Map – overview

    The Australian Cyber Law Map provides clarity on ever-changing legal landscape, covering commercial enterprises, cyber offences, infrastructure, international law, national security and personal rights. A source for understanding laws and providing safety/security in the digital age.

    Read more …

  • Explaining Australia’s Media Bargaining Code

    Explaining Australia’s Media Bargaining Code

    The News Media Bargaining Code (NMBC) is quickly moving through Parliament and looks likely to become law. It requires digital platforms, such as Facebook and Google, to negotiate remuneration with News Companies for providing their media services. Non-compliance could result in hefty civil penalties.

    Read more …

  • My client poached my software developers – what can I do?

    My client poached my software developers – what can I do?

    This article examines how professional service businesses can protect their investment in employees from clients poaching them. It looks at potential clauses such as client agreements, non-solicitation of employees, restraints of trade, confidential information, copyright and more.

    Read more …

  • Patent granted for software tracking user actions

    Patent granted for software tracking user actions

    A decision by Australian Patent Office provides insight into patentable subject matter for computer-implemented inventions. Case of Facebook, Inc. [2020] APO 19 is a successful example of technical improvement in computer-implemented method, resulting in patentability even with generic computer implementation.

    Read more …

  • Use of IRUs in a telecommunications capacity

    Use of IRUs in a telecommunications capacity

    Learn how to structure IRUs for tax compliance and ensure your cable system capacity services are secure. Discover the key elements you need to include in your agreement to guarantee exclusive access and economic ownership rights.

    Read more …

  • Interactive Gambling Act 2001 (Cth) overview

    Interactive Gambling Act 2001 (Cth) overview

    Online gaming operators in Australia must abide by the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 (Cth). Learn more about the rules and regulations, and the consequences when they are not followed.

    Read more …


Posted

in

,
Send this to a friend