Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Telescoping into the Void

By Jason M. Osborn, John T. Hildy & Anthony D. Pastore on November 2, 2020
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Colliding of two Quasars galaxies with Black Hole in centrum

Last week, the IRS issued new guidance that addresses “telescoping” in mutual agreement procedure (“MAP”) and advance pricing agreement (“APA”) cases. Very generally, the guidance disallows (subject to a $10 million materiality exception) telescoping for tax years starting in 2018, when the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (“TCJA”) came into effect, while continuing to allow telescoping for pre-2018 years in appropriate cases. According to the IRS’s Advance Pricing and Mutual Agreement (“APMA”) program, the new guidance was needed to address the impact of the TCJA “and its many interlocking provisions that require careful determination (and redetermination, as needed) of a U.S. taxpayer’s taxable income and tax attributes.” The new guidance has the potential to drive up compliance costs by increasing the number of tax returns that taxpayers must file to resolve MAP and APA resolutions for post-TCJA years (and resolutions spanning both pre- and post-TCJA years).

“Telescoping” refers to an administrative accommodation through which the taxpayer and the APMA program may agree to aggregate the total adjustments resulting from a multiple-year MAP or APA resolution and implement the net result into a single tax year. For example, if a MAP or APA case involved multiple tax years—e.g., 2015, 2016, and 2017—the parties could agree that the taxpayer will recognize the results of any MAP or APA resolution in the last year of the resolution, e.g., 2017.

This administrative practice has simplified taxpayer compliance. Resolving a MAP or APA case often requires amending Federal tax returns, which may trigger the requirement to amend numerous SALT returns. In our experience, implementation of multi-year MAP or APA resolution can present a compliance burden, but telescoping can reduce the burden significantly.

The new guidance curbs the availability of telescoping for post-TCJA tax years. For the 2018 tax year and forward, the taxpayer may request telescoping only for resolutions of $10 million or less for all affected tax years. In those cases, the IRS will continue to “permit the U.S. taxpayer to reflect the aggregate change in a taxable year beyond the last year . . . covered by the case,” although “[t]he exact year in which the change will be permitted will depend upon various factors.”

If the change exceeds $10 million, however, “[t]he U.S. taxpayer will generally be instructed to amend its U.S. federal income tax returns for each of the individual years covered by its case.” (Emphasis added.) Taxpayers will not be permitted to aggregate the results of a resolution for post-TCJA years, and they will not be able to roll those results forward to a later year.

The guidance also impacts pre-TCJA tax years. If all the years at issue end before 2018, “the U.S. taxpayer may request that the change to taxable income for each year of the case be aggregated, netted, and reflected in the last of those taxable years.” Thus, telescoping pre-2018 adjustments to the current year’s original return is not allowed under the guidance. This means that taxpayers obtaining approval to telescope pre-2018 MAP or APA rollback adjustments will still need to file at least one amended federal return (plus required amended SALT returns) for the last impacted pre-2018 year, as opposed to reporting the total adjustment on the current year original return. However, for pre-2018 MAP or APA rollback resolutions resulting in a net decrease to U.S. taxable income, telescoping to a pre-2018 amended return is generally beneficial since it ensures any refund will be calculated by reference to the 35% corporate tax rate in effect for those years.

Photo of Jason M. Osborn Jason M. Osborn

Jason Osborn is a Tax partner in the firm’s Washington DC office. He provides sophisticated transfer pricing and international tax advice to multinational clients in wide range of industries, including financial institutions, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, software, automotive, consumer products, energy and transportation.

Jason re-joined…

Jason Osborn is a Tax partner in the firm’s Washington DC office. He provides sophisticated transfer pricing and international tax advice to multinational clients in wide range of industries, including financial institutions, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, software, automotive, consumer products, energy and transportation.

Jason re-joined Mayer Brown in 2013 after holding transfer pricing-related positions with Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) from 2008-2012, initially as a team leader in the Advance Pricing Agreement (“APA”) Program and subsequently as a manager in the transfer pricing branch of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (International). Leveraging this IRS experience, Jason brings to the table a unique and insider’s perspective in advising clients on complex transfer pricing matters and negotiating APAs. Prior to his IRS service, Jason was a senior Tax associate at Mayer Brown focused on transfer pricing matters.

Continue Reading

Read more about Jason M. OsbornEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of John T. Hildy John T. Hildy

John is an experienced advocate in federal tax disputes faced by multi-national corporations. He has represented clients in some of the most complex tax litigation in the country. The amounts at stake in federal tax disputes can often be staggering. So big, in…

John is an experienced advocate in federal tax disputes faced by multi-national corporations. He has represented clients in some of the most complex tax litigation in the country. The amounts at stake in federal tax disputes can often be staggering. So big, in fact, that it often seems cases become “too big to settle,” as the positions of the tax authorities and taxpayers are separated by hundreds of millions, and even billions, of dollars. John is adept at bridging this gap, having participated in multiple settlements of multiple disputes in which the dollars at stake reached into ten digits.

Continue Reading

Read more about John T. HildyEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Anthony D. Pastore Anthony D. Pastore

Anthony Pastore is a partner in Mayer Brown’s Chicago office and a member of the Tax Controversy & Transfer Pricing practice.

Since joining the firm in 2013, Anthony has represented corporate, partnership, and individual taxpayers in all stages of tax controversy, including examination…

Anthony Pastore is a partner in Mayer Brown’s Chicago office and a member of the Tax Controversy & Transfer Pricing practice.

Since joining the firm in 2013, Anthony has represented corporate, partnership, and individual taxpayers in all stages of tax controversy, including examination, administrative appeal, litigation, and trial. He has experience with transfer pricing allocations, debt-equity characterization, valuations, accounting method changes, substance-over-form arguments, and penalties.

Read full bio.

Read more about Anthony D. PastoreEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Tax
  • Blog:
    Best Methods
  • Organization:
    Mayer Brown
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo