United States: Solar Start Of Constructive Guidance, A Comprehensive Analysis

New Internal Revenue Service (IRS) guidance on what it takes to start construction of a solar project raises practical questions, but it is very helpful in keeping the industry humming along.

Solar projects that are under construction by the end of 2019 qualify for the 30 percent investment tax credit. The credit dips to 26 percent for projects starting construction in 2020 and to 22 percent for projects starting construction in 2021. Projects meeting these deadlines must still be placed in service by the end of 2023 to qualify for a credit above 10 percent.

The credit drops to a permanent 10 percent level for projects that begin construction in 2022 or later. Projects that begin construction before 2022, but are not placed in service until 2024 or later, are also limited to the 10 percent credit.

The guidance had been delayed for some time, and developers were starting to worry that they would not have time to plan for projects projected for 2020 or later. This was particularly important for those bidding into Requests for Proposals or for very large projects. The International Trade Comission (ITC) amount helps determine the cost of the project, which ultimately leads to the price that the developer can bid for a PPA.

The guidance also applies to other technologies like fuel cells, CHP and geothermal projects, but we will leave them for another day.

As we suspected (and noted in our "Got ITCs" article distributed in connection with the Infocast Solar conference in March), the guidance largely follows a similar set of rules that apply to wind farms, which are based on more than 50 years of precedent. The IRS moved away from the wind guidance and precedent in several respects and made a few new clarifications.

Background

The IRS has issued six sets of guidance on this issue in the production tax credit context since 2013.

The IRS has had a heck of a time implementing the wind rules. This is mostly because the very accomplished tax professionals at the IRS and the Treasury are tax specialists, not wind or solar specialists. They have not had years of project development and financing experience to be able to foresee some of the real world issues that arise when tax policy and weird financing trends meet. They were able to take some meetings with people on the ground, but there really were too many stakeholders to see everyone.

So, where does this leave us?

Two Pathways

The new rules use a dual-pathway approach to determine whether construction started by a given date.

One pathway requires "physical work of a significant nature" to begin. That physical work must then continue until completion. The other pathway requires the taxpayer to "incur" at least 5 percent of the total cost of the facility. As with the first method, the taxpayer must make continuous efforts to advance toward completion of the facility. Of the two, the continuous efforts concept is theoretically easier to meet because it does not require continuous physical work.

Any facility that is placed in service by the end of the fourth calendar year after the year in which construction begins will be automatically considered to have satisfied the continuous construction or continuous efforts requirement. This is true even if there is a long gap between when physical work starts in 2019 (or earlier) and when the work resumes in a later year. The IRS refers to this test as a "continuity safe harbor."

The need for a continuity safe harbor is questionable, since (1) there is a statutory deadline to the credits higher than 10 percent, and (2) what it takes to show that you moved the ball forward continuously is not readily definable (which is why we have the continuity safe harbor in wind).

The IRS said in 2016 that a taxpayer cannot buy more time under this continuity safe harbor by relying on the physical work test and the 5 percent test in alternating calendar years. For example, a taxpayer cannot rely on the physical work test in one year and then claim that it incurred at least 5 percent of the total cost of the facility in the next year. The IRS applied the same rule to solar, but it does not apply to projects that started work prior to January 1, 2019 (although an example (inconsistently) says that, if you start construction with one method in 2018 and then another in 2019, you have to use the 2018 method for determining the four year rule).

Practically, in order to be sure that financing will be available, developers should assume that they have to finish the project within four years after the year they start construction.

Five Percent Test

As stated above, the 5 percent pathway requires that a project owner incur at least 5 percent of the project's cost prior to the construction start deadline. The "project's cost" for this purpose means the cost of that portion of the facility that qualifies for five-year accelerated depreciation (basically, the equipment necessary to generate electricity from solar power).

A cost is incurred only when it is incurred under the taxpayer's method of accounting. If it is a cash basis taxpayer, then the cost is incurred when the cash goes out the door. Accrual basis taxpayers "accrue" costs only when all events that give rise to the liability have occurred, the amount owed can be determined with reasonable accuracy, and "economic performance" has occurred. Economic performance occurs when the item or service is delivered, title passes (along with risk of loss), or the item or service is accepted, with one main exception.

The IRS rules do not define title, delivery or acceptance, so it is best to try to boil the concept down to either physical or constructive possession. Take physical possession. Take risk of loss (bear insurance costs). Take legal title and accept the item (through a bill of sale if possible).

We often see equipment "delivered" ex works, which means at the factory just after it is made. This is technically fine, but it puts more pressure on whether the buyer has constructive possession. The buyer should make sure that the seller segregates the purchased equipment from other equipment at the factory, and the buyer should pay for transport (if possible) from the factory to the site or storage facility.

If a taxpayer cannot prove that it incurred costs under these rules, it can look to a contractor's costs. However, only costs incurred under a binding written contract with the taxpayer count. The binding written contract rules are discussed in detail below.

The one exception to the rules described above (for accrual basis taxpayers) is called the "three and a half month" rule. This treats a payment as incurred on the date paid if the taxpayer takes physical or constructive possession within three and a half months of the first payment for the equipment. If more than one item is ordered, then all of the items must be provided within the three and a half month period.

It is important to note that the payment may not be funded by the seller of the equipment. This kind of arrangement calls into question whether the payment was real and whether the buyer truly incurred the costs. Related buyers and sellers should generally stay away from the three and a half month test to avoid getting caught up in this rule. Rather, the buyer (from a related seller) should take physical or constructive control of the equipment by the year-end construction start deadline.

During the cash grant era (generally 2009 to 2012), it was not uncommon to finance panel supply contracts that were used to grandfather projects with debt, and solar developers may find this to be an attractive option as they think ahead to 2019 and 2020. One of the big issues is collateral. Should the lender get a lien on only the "magic" components, or the project as a whole? Are there even projects at this point that could be put up as collateral? Is there a corporate guarantee as an alternative?

Also keep in mind that any payment made outside of the three and a half month window will not count. We often hear people say that they think that the rule is that you had to pay by the deadline and take delivery by mid-April of the next year.

This is only true if you paid the entire purchase price at the end of December. For example, if you make monthly payments for equipment at the end of each month throughout 2019, you can include the December payment only if you do not receive the equipment until April 10, 2020. Any payments that were made between January and November 2019 do not count because they were outside of the three and a half month window.

Cost Overruns

While the test requires 5 percent or more to be spent by the relevant deadline, developers will be smart to spend significantly more if there is any chance of a cost overrun (and lenders will likely require the same). In the cash grant days, lenders and investors typically required upwards of 7 percent to be spent to have some cushion. We might see that push to 10 percent or more for some solar projects due to some quirks in the guidance.

If final costs are higher than expected, the developer is permitted to treat independent project units (strings or blocks) and size down the project to run the 5 percent test. However, because many costs are allocated ratably among project assets, merely cutting 10 percent of the project off of the calculation may not fix the glitch in all cases. The numerator and denominator of the fraction used to determine the percentage spent by the deadline would both be reduced.

In addition, because rooftop projects are treated as one unit under the guidance, there is no ability to cut them down into smaller components in order to get under the 5 percent mark. The only practical course is to incur well above the 5 percent mark prior to the deadline.

Physical Work Test

If a solar developer cannot show that it incurred at least 5 percent of the project's costs by the applicable deadline, you can show that you started construction by starting significant physical work.

The legislative history and guidance under the tax credit grandfathering rules has consistently said that work merely has to "start." The IRS and the Treasury have applied this concept in the production tax credit guidance as well. There is no reason to believe that the bar will be higher for solar. Congress intended for projects to be built. The rules merely require one to start the work.

Both on-site and off-site work can count.

The work can be performed by the taxpayer, by a contractor or by a subcontractor of the contractor. However, any work done by a contractor counts only if it is done under a binding contract that is in place before the work starts.

Legislative history suggests that this means that the contract must be binding by the applicable deadline and that the focus of the inquiry is on only the contract between the taxpayer and the first-level contractor (i.e., excluding any subcontracts). However, some tax counsel take a narrower view.

Some investors (and/or their counsel) require a binding contract for each subcontract as well if a sub of a sub of a sub (for example) is the person doing the actual work. The legislative history (going all the way back to 1966) is clear that this is not required. The history says that the contract needs to be binding only with respect to a distributor or middleman. Nevertheless, certain tax lawyers have required it recently because they are being asked to give exceptionally high level tax opinions.

Though the requirement is of questionable relevance, the thought is that it is safer to have binding contracts all the way down the chain than only at the taxpayer-contractor level. This kind of inquiry can run into practical roadblocks where contractors (or their subs) are reluctant to share confidential details of their manufacturing arrangements with tax equity.

Any components manufactured off site cannot come from the manufacturer's inventory and cannot be equipment that the manufacturer normally holds in its inventory. Basically, real work has to occur that would not have occurred without the taxpayer placing the order. Here again, some conservative tax lawyers become concerned if the equipment does not appear "customized" to a particular project, as opposed to merely being custom ordered for the taxpayer.

They want the equipment to be "bespoke" in the traditional sense. That is, it is not only made for the client, but it is made for the client project's specific measurements.

If the noninventory rule were to apply to solar, it would be hard to find much equipment for which a solar project could claim that it started construction based on off-site manufacturing. Racking and carports designed specifically to fit a site are not normally held in inventory. The same should go for transformers as a general matter, but only very large projects have their own transformers. Work on a transformer that will be owned by the utility does not count.

Manufacturing work on solar panels or cells would not count, unless there is a major shift in policy to accommodate solar projects. They are clearly of a type normally held in inventory.

The physical work must be on equipment that is an integral part of the generating facility as opposed to transmission equipment, land (other than certain roads) or buildings. The IRS said in an internal memo in 2011 that all of the equipment at a substation used through the point where the electricity is stepped up to transmission voltage, plus equipment beyond the step-up transformer if the equipment is related to the functioning of the transformer or transfer equipment, is an integral part of the power generating activity and is therefore qualified property.

The IRS guidance on production tax credit construction-start issues gives four examples of physical work that it thinks is "significant" enough to pass the test.

In the first example, a developer had a contractor excavate and install concrete pads for 20 percent of the turbines for his wind farm. For the solar guidance, the IRS noted that one could start physical work of a significant nature by installing 10 of 50 supporting structures to affix components of the project to a foundation. Query what this means where the project is merely ballasted or the racking is merely vibrated into the ground. Many solar projects do not have foundations in the traditional sense. They might be ballasted on the roof of a commercial building, or they might merely be attached to racking on a residential building or vibrating a tracker into the desert.

Consistent with the wind guidance, the IRS clarified that there is no spending minimum for the physical work test. The test is whether the work that started is on something that is qualitatively significant. That is not to say that investors will not impose a monetary threshold anyway, but the IRS has repeated time and again that one does not exist. Second, the PTC guidance says that "physical work on a custom-designed transformer that steps up the voltage of electricity produced at the facility to the voltage needed for transmission is physical work of a significant nature." This is because you cannot use the power that you produce if you cannot get it to market. It needs to be at either transmission or distribution voltage to use it if you are not using the power on site. That said, the solar guidance is inconsistent on this front. We have a call into the IRS national office to clarify. One part of the guidance says that off-site physical work of a significant nature may include transformers that are used to step up voltage to less than 69kV. Where would that leave utility scale projects where they have to go from less than 69kV to (often) 220 kV? Another example says that work on a custom designed transformer that steps up electricity to the voltage needed for transmission (69 kV or greater) will be considered.

The result of the inconsistency likely means that, absent clarifying comments or guidance, we will not see transformer qualified projects get financed by sophisticated counterparties.

Starting construction on "string roads" (i.e., roads for equipment to operate and maintain the qualified facility) also constitutes physical work of a significant nature. In contrast, work for roads that are primarily used to access the site or that are primarily used for employee or visitor vehicles does not qualify. Most solar projects likely either do not have any roads or they have only access roads. Only the biggest projects will have meaningful amounts of roads.

It remains to be seen what level of on-site physical work investors will permit to count for solar projects. In any case, the options for solar appear much more limited, except in the case of larger utility scale projects. In the Treasury grant days, the investor community preferred the 5 percent safe harbor because the physical work test was largely unworkable. No one knew (or could get comfortable with a good deal of conservatism) what on-site work of a significant nature meant, except for the largest utility scale projects. In those cases, we often saw investors (and the Treasury) count a combination of road work that permitted maintenance (and was not merely an access road), water well drilling, and/or transformer or substation construction.

The problem with the comparison to wind for on-site physical work is that wind turbine foundations are typically 70-80 feet in diameter and six to eight feet deep. You should consider what work you can do on site or off that is qualitatively significant.

While work does not have to be quantitatively significant as a technical matter, investors will require it to be so, absent clear IRS guidance to the contrary. The more work, the better.

This does not mean that investors will not impose their own minimum spend threshold based on internal preferences.

For example, we are only recently seeing the larger tax-equity investors accept the position that off-site transformer fabrication is physical work of a significant nature, even though it has been specifically permitted under IRS guidance for several years. The unease is largely due to the fact that it may cost only $200,000 to begin the fabrication of a transformer that will be part of a $300 million project. Investors are coming around on the issue, but each has its own quirks as to what it thinks about the concept and what kinds of support it needs to see. The IRS national office staff has reiterated (again informally) this view, saying that it is not troubled by a low level of work as long as the work is of a significant nature. The government is protected by the requirement to show continuous work if the project is not placed in service by a certain date.

If work finishes after the later of December 31, 2018, or the end of the four-year "continuous work" presumption (applicable to wind and not yet clear whether it is applicable to solar), the IRS will closely scrutinize the work to ensure that it was continuous. The IRS has listed a number of tasks (generally outside of the developer's control, like severe weather and financing issues) that are permissible disruptions in continuous work. It is unclear whether a disruption could include, for these purposes, the fact that a transmission upgrade is not expected to be made within the continuity safe harbor.

At the end of the day, the IRS developed the continuity safe harbor discussed above because the continuity requirements are unworkable in practice. No one really knows what they mean.

Single Project vs. Blocks

Under the wind tax credit guidance, multiple turbines that are operated as a single, integrated project are treated as a single facility for purposes of testing when construction started. The solar rules follow this concept, with an important exception. Rooftop systems (whether C&I or residential) are always treated as one unit, meaning that they cannot be split apart if there are cost overruns or if one part is delayed beyond four years or beyond the placed-in-service deadline.

The question of whether multiple units should be treated as a single facility depends on the facts. Facts that point to a single facility are that one company owns the entire project, all of the electricity is sold under a single power contract, all of the electricity moves to the grid through a single substation and intertie, the entire project is financed under a single loan agreement, all of the turbines are on contiguous sites, and all of the equipment is procured under a single turbine supply agreement.

Physical work counts only if it is done under a binding contract that is in place before the work starts.

A contract is binding only if it is enforceable under state law against the taxpayer or a predecessor and does not limit damages to a specified amount. For this purpose, a contractual provision that limits damages to at least 5 percent of the total contract price will not be treated as limiting damages to a specified amount.

In 2013, a group of wind generators, lenders and tax equity investors asked the Treasury to draw clear lines about how much work had to be done on turbine excavations, roads, transformers or other major components for a project to be considered under construction in 2013 (the deadline at that time). The IRS national office staff stated repeatedly on an informal basis that there was no definite minimum threshold for work. The analysis is based on a qualitative analysis of the work. That is, was the work on some material aspect of the project? The IRS then issued a new notice that confirmed the position, saying, "[a]ssuming the work performed is of a significant nature, there is no fixed minimum amount of work or monetary or percentage threshold required to satisfy the Physical Work Test."

In the Treasury grant context, solar projects (other than residential projects) could be broken down into blocks that included one or more strings of panels and an inverter. The rationale was that, like a wind turbine, a string of panels and an inverter can operate independent of other strings of panels, in theory. The IRS declined to follow this path, which arguably is contrary to Revenue Ruling 94-31.

Larger projects are often completed in phases that begin in different years. In the wind context, the best practice is typically to assume that each phase needs to meet the start of construction rules independently. It is somewhat unusual for these kinds of projects to have enough commonality between phases for financiers to be comfortable that each phase is part of a single project. The same rationale should apply to large-scale solar projects.

Solar projects that are located on separate buildings should be analyzed independently from each other. We often see this in the context of solar projects on college or school campuses.

Transfers

The IRS took a familiar path for project/equipment transfers, largely following the wind guidance.

The solar guidance permits transfers of "real projects" to third parties. That means that if you have a project that is at NTP or mechanical completion, it can be sold to a third party without losing its grandfather taint.

If you have only grandfathered equipment, like a transformer, solar panels or inverters that were acquired before the relevant deadline, they will lose their taint if they are sold outright to a third party.

You can contribute them to a partnership as long as you take an interest in the company equal to at least 20.1 percent of profits or capital. A partner's share of capital is equal to its share of liquidation proceeds if the partnership liquidated. It is unclear what a partner's share of profits is (the IRS has not defined it), so the best-case scenario is to give the partner a 20.1 percent or greater interest that does not vary over time.

It is important that the partnership be treated as a real partnership and not a contrivance. So, if the contributing partner wants to get out of the deal at some point, it should not be prebaked if possible. If the other partner wants a call option to buy that partner out, that could work, but in no case should it be for less than the fair value of the interest or before at least the date on which the project is placed in service (ideally, the option would be delayed until two years after the project is placed in service, but that is just our preference). 

In no case should the contributor of the turbines get the right to put its interest to the other partners. 

If a project is sold before NTP, it should have more than grandfathered equipment. Try to include a site lease, PPA, interconnection, other nongrandfathered equipment and an EPC contract if possible.

Key Observations for Solar

  • The 5 percent test (technically, but not economically) is the easiest path for solar projects.

It is the most objective test, and it will be the easiest path to "sell" to investors and their tax counsel, apart from the cost overrun issue noted above.

The 5 percent test also has the added benefit that, if you start construction with the safe harbor, you merely have to move development forward continuously by incurring costs or getting permits and other approvals, rather than continue with physical work on a continuous basis. The physical work test requires continuous physical work to proceed.

  • The 5 percent test has practical difficulties that must be balanced.

The 5 percent test is likely the more expensive path. The alternatives that involve merely "starting" work on qualitatively significant equipment can have a much lower barrier to entry. The developer of a $200 million project would need to incur $10 million under the 5 percent test. Alternatively, a developer can start construction on certain transformers (with a roughly $1 million price tag), paying less than 10 percent of the purchase price of the transformer prior to the construction start deadline.

The 5 percent test also brings with it the risk that equipment purchased for grandfathering purposes becomes outdated before a project can be deployed. We saw solar panels and inverters purchased for these purposes in connection with the Treasury grant program where project buyers were not interested in the grandfathered equipment. In some cases, it was due to the preference for "new" models of equipment. In others, it was because construction or permitting standards have evolved past the equipment purchased in prior years.

  • The most practical spend to include in a 5 percent safe harbor approach is to buy solar panels or inverters.

As a technical matter, any costs incurred with respect to the project's solar generation equipment counts. However, if you look to costs other than the central generating equipment itself (accounting, legal, permitting, design, etc.), you run the risk that an investor will require part or all of the line items to be allocated to noneligible costs. Much of the allocation procedure is done by feel, meaning that there is more than one "right" way to make the allocation. The possibility of different approaches reduces the benefit of using the 5 percent test, which should be objective certainty.

  • For equipment purchased for the 5 percent test, make sure that you are very comfortable that you either (1) take physical or constructive delivery by the deadline or (2) pay for the equipment with your own money or a loan you take out from a third party (e.g., not the seller of the equipment).

If you pay for only the equipment by the deadline, make sure the equipment is delivered within three and a half months of the first payment. Make sure you check with your accountants on whether your tax methods of accounting permit you to use the three and a half month rule. A new taxpayer (partnership or corporation) can use the three and a half month rule, but this method's use needs consistent going forward.

Make sure that there are no obligations to give the equipment back if the purchased equipment cannot be deployed.

Make sure that any "delivery" off site gives the buyer the right to visit the equipment and segregates the equipment from equipment that is intended for other buyers or projects. The buyer also should have legal title, pay for insurance, and pay for further shipping or installation. Do not rely merely on legal title transfer alone, even if people try to tell you that is what the words in the guidance say.

  • As for the physical work test, solar projects are harmed by rules that require work to occur on only items not held in inventory.

There just are not a large number of custom components for a solar project. If you have custom racking, carports or a transformer (for larger projects), you may be able to start work on those items. Everything else is generally held in inventory.

  • You should confirm that the contract was binding and written when the work started, and that each subcontract was binding and written as well.

Make sure that the contracts under which the work is performed are binding for state (or country) law purposes, that they state the specs of the item being purchased and that they do not permit either party to get out of the deal willy nilly.

If you have a termination option, the best course is to have the buyer pay damages of at least 5 percent of the purchase price plus (ideally) the value of equipment built to date. Make sure that any termination language that you add to a purchase agreement form does not conflict with the form's existing termination or refund language.

If you adjust the terms of the contract after it is signed, run the changes by your tax lawyer. A change of the price by 10 percent or less should not be a problem, but some tax lawyers worry about certain changes, notwithstanding the fact that the price may not have changed significantly.

Do not include a right to suspend work at the buyer's convenience. If you do include such a right, make sure that there is a date by which work must restart or termination will be presumed, triggering damages.

  • Unlike wind projects, which may have hundreds of large excavations and miles of new roads on a site, distributed generation projects (and even some large utility-scale projects) might not have any excavations and may be placed on a single roof.

This means that the only option for some solar projects to show that construction commenced may be to use the 5 percent safe harbor or to start construction of equipment off site. Because off-site construction can only be counted if it is on specially ordered equipment, this likely would eliminate any physical work prospects for most of the solar projects being built. That leaves these developers to rely on the 5 percent safe harbor, which, while viable, is vastly more expensive.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions