Internal Revenue Bulletin 2007-47 (PDF rendition): IRS Announcements

Preserve advance releases and the authoritative Internal Revenue Bulletin rendition; directory timestamps are file-publication metadata, not legal effective dates. HTML bulletins begin June 2003; earlier available issues require full PDF parsing. Whole bulletin rendition: numbered items are identified below; other legal material and publisher context remain included. This is not a new standalone advance release.

Bulletin No. 200
7-47
November 19, 200
7
HIGHLIGHTS
OF THIS ISSUE
These synopses are intended only as aids to the reader in
identifying the subject matter covered. They may not be
relied upon as authoritative interpretations.
INCOME TAX
Ct. D. 2084, page 1032.
Abatement; interest accruals; federal income taxes.The
Supreme Court holds that the Tax Court provides the exclusive
forum for judicial review of failure to abate interest under sec-
tion 6404(e)(1).
T.D. 9361,
page 1026.
Final regu
lations under section 368 of the Code amend regu-
lations se
ctions 1.368–1(d), 1.368–2(f) and 1.368–2(k) con-
cerning th
e tax treatment of post-reorganization transfers of
assets or
stock of a party to the reorganization.
REG–134923–07, page 1037.
Proposed regulations under section 31 U.S.C. 9701 implement
new user fees for the initial and renewed enrollment to become
an enrolled actuary. The new user fees established by the reg-
ulations reflect the IRS’s costs of overseeing the initial enroll-
ment and renewal of enrollment processes. The regulations es-
tablish a $250 user fee for initial enrollment and a $250 user
fee for renewal of enrollment. A public hearing is scheduled for
November 26, 2007.
EXEMPT O
RGANIZATIONS
Announ
cement 2007–108, page 1044.
A list is
provided of organizations now classified as private foun-
dation
s.
EMPLOYMENT TAX
Notice 2007–92, page 1036.
2008 social security contribution and benefit base; do-
mestic employee coverage threshold.The Commissioner
of the Social Security Administration has announced (1) the
OASDI contribution and benefit base for remuneration paid in
2008 and self-employment income earned in taxable years
beginning in 2008, and (2) the domestic employee coverage
threshold amount for 2008.
ADMINISTRATIVE
Ct. D. 2084, page 1032.
Abatement; interest accruals; federal income taxes.The
Supreme Court holds that the Tax Court provides the exclusive
forum for judicial review of failure to abate interest under sec-
tion 6404(e)(1).
Announcement 2007–109, page 1045.
This document contains corrections to proposed regulations
(REG–107592–00, 2007–44 I.R.B. 908) and withdrawal of pro-
posed regulations (REG–105964–98) providing guidance re-
garding the treatment of transactions involving obligations be-
tween members of a consolidated group and the treatment of
transactions involving the provision of insurance between mem-
bers of a consolidated group. These regulations will affect cor-
porations filing consolidated returns.
Announcements of Disbarments and Suspensions begin on page 1039.
Fi
nding Lists begin on page ii.

The IRS Mission
Provide America’s taxpayers top quality service by helping
them understand and meet their tax responsibilities and by
applying the tax law with integrity and fairness to all.
Introduction
The Internal Revenue Bulletin is the authoritative instrument of
the Commissioner of Internal Revenue for announcing official
rulings and procedures of the Internal Revenue Service and for
publishing Treasury Decisions, Executive Orders, Tax Conven-
tions, legislation, court decisions, and other items of general
interest. It is published weekly and may be obtained from the
Superintendent of Documents on a subscription basis. Bulletin
contents are compiled semiannually into Cumulative Bulletins,
which are sold on a single-copy basis.
It is the policy of the Service to publish in the Bulletin all sub-
stantive rulings necessary to promote a uniform application of
the tax laws, including all rulings that supersede, revoke, mod-
ify, or amend any of those previously published in the Bulletin.
All published rulings apply retroactively unless otherwise indi-
cated. Procedures relating solely to matters of internal man-
agement are not published; however, statements of internal
practices and procedures that affect the rights and duties of
taxpayers are published.
Revenue rulings represent the conclusions of the Service on the
application of the law to the pivotal facts stated in the revenue
ruling. In those based on positions taken in rulings to taxpayers
or technical advice to Service field offices, identifying details
and information of a confidential nature are deleted to prevent
unwarranted invasions of privacy and to comply with statutory
requirements.
Rulings and procedures reported in the Bulletin do not have the
force and effect of Treasury Department Regulations, but they
may be used as precedents. Unpublished rulings will not be
relied on, used, or cited as precedents by Service personnel in
the disposition of other cases. In applying published rulings and
procedures, the effect of subsequent legislation, regulations,
court decisions, rulings, and procedures must be considered,
and Service personnel and others concerned are cautioned
against reaching the same conclusions in other cases unless
the facts and circumstances are substantially the same.
The Bulletin is divided into four parts as follows:
Part I.—19
86 Code.
This part i
ncludes rulings and decisions based on provisions of
the Intern
al Revenue Code of 1986.
Part II.—Treaties and Tax Legislation.
This part is divided into two subparts as follows: Subpart A,
Tax Conventions and Other Related Items, and Subpart B, Leg-
islation and Related Committee Reports.
Part III.—Administrative, Procedural, and Miscellaneous.
To the extent practicable, pertinent cross references to these
subjects are contained in the other Parts and Subparts. Also
included in this part are Bank Secrecy Act Administrative Rul-
ings. Bank Secrecy Act Administrative Rulings are issued by
the Department of the Treasury’s Office of the Assistant Sec-
retary (Enforcement).
Part IV
.—Items of General Interest.
This par
t includes notices of proposed rulemakings, disbar-
ment an
d suspension lists, and announcements.
The last Bulletin for each month includes a cumulative index
for the matters published during the preceding months. These
monthly indexes are cumulated on a semiannual basis, and are
published in the last Bulletin of each semiannual period.
The c
ontents of this publication are not copyrighted and may be reprinted freely. A citation of the Internal Revenue Bulletin as the source would be appropriate.
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S.Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402.
November 19, 20072007–47 I.R.B.

Part I. Rulings and Decisions Under the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986
Section 368.—Definitions
Relating to Corporate
Reorganizations
26 CFR 1.368–1: Purpose and scope of exception of
reorganization exchanges.
T.D. 9361
DEPARTMENT OF
THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Part 1
Corporate Reorganizations;
Transfers of Assets or Stock
Following a Reorganization
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service
(IRS), Treasury.
ACTION: Final regulations.
SUMMARY: This document contains final
regulations that provide guidance regard-
ing the effect of certain transfers of assets
or stock on the continuing qualification of
transactions as reorganizations under sec-
tion 368(a). This document also contains
final regulations that provide guidance on
the continuity of business enterprise re-
quirement and the definitions of “qualified
group” and “party to a reorganization.”
These regulations affect corporations and
their shareholders.
DATES:Effective Date:These regulations
are effective October 25, 2007.
Applicability Date:For dates of
applicability, see §§1.368–1(d)(4)(iv),
1.368–1(d)(5), 1.368–2(f), 1.368–2(j)
(3)(iv), and 1.368–2(k)(3).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT: Mary W. Lyons, at (202)
622–7930 (not a toll-free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On August 18, 2004, the IRS and Trea-
sury Department published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (REG–130863–04,
2004–2 C.B. 538) in theFederal Register
(69 FR 51209) proposing regulations that
would provide guidance regarding the ef-
fect of certain transfers of assets or stock
on the qualification of a transaction as a
reorganization under section 368(a) (the
proposed regulations). The proposed reg-
ulations also included amendments to the
continuity of business enterprise (COBE)
regulations under §1.368–1(d) and the
definition of a “party to a reorganization”
under §1.368–2(f). The proposed regula-
tions replaced an earlier proposal, dated
March 2, 2004 (REG–165579–02, 2004–1
C.B. 651) and published in theFederal
Register(69 FR 9771), which was with-
drawn. No public hearing regarding the
proposed regulations was requested or
held. However, a number of comments
were received, the most significant of
which are discussed in this preamble.
The theory underlying the tax-free
treatment afforded reorganizations de-
scribed in section 368 is that such trans-
actions “effect only a readjustment of
continuing interest in property under mod-
ified corporate forms.” See §1.368–1(b).
The continuity of interest and continuity
of business enterprise requirements are
expressions of this principle. Earlier cases
also implemented this principle through
a concept that later became known as
the prohibition of “remote” continuity of
interest. Commonly viewed as arising
out of the Supreme Court decisions in
Groman v. Commissioner, 302 U.S. 82
(1937), andHelvering v. Bashford,302
U.S. 454 (1938), remote continuity of
interest focuses on the link between the
former target corporation (T) shareholders
and the T business assets following the
reorganization.
Since the Supreme Court’s decisions
inGromanandBashford, it has been
recognized that other transactions, in-
cluding transactions involving the same
level of “remoteness” as addressed in
theGromanandBashforddecisions, ad-
equately preserve the link between the
former T shareholders and the T business
assets and therefore constitute mere read-
justments of continuing interests. Accord-
ingly, legislative, regulatory, and adminis-
trative developments have provided signif-
icantly more flexibility regarding transfers
of stock and assets following otherwise
tax-free reorganizations where this link
is adequately maintained. For example,
Congress enacted section 368(a)(2)(D) to
expressly allow a triangular reorganization
by permitting a controlled subsidiary to
use its parent’s stock as consideration in
a merger. Similarly, the term “party to a
reorganization” was broadened to include
the parent in such a case.
In addition, Congress enacted section
368(a)(2)(C), which provides that a trans-
action otherwise qualifying under section
368(a)(1)(A), (B), (C), or (G) (where the
requirements of section 354(b) are met)
is not disqualified where part or all of the
acquired assets or stock is transferred to a
corporation that is controlled (as defined in
section 368(c)) by the acquiring corpora-
tion. Section 1.368–2(k), as in effect prior
to these final regulations, expanded the
scope of section 368(a)(2)(C) by permit-
ting successive transfers of the acquired
assets or stock to one or more corporations,
provided that the transferee corporation
was controlled in each transfer by the
transferor corporation. Administratively,
the IRS and Treasury Department have
since interpreted section 368(a)(2)(C) and
§1.368–2(k) as permissive rather than
exclusive or restrictive, concluding that
certain transfers not specifically described
in either of those provisions did not dis-
qualify the reorganization. See Rev. Rul.
2001–24, 2001–1 C.B. 1290, permit-
ting the transfer of acquiring subsidiary
stock to a controlled subsidiary follow-
ing a reorganization described in section
368(a)(1)(A) by reason of (a)(2)(D), and
Rev. Rul. 2002–85, 2002–2 C.B. 986, per-
mitting the transfer of acquired assets to a
controlled subsidiary following a reorga-
nization described in section 368(a)(1)(D).
The current regulations do not con-
tain separate rules addressing remote
continuity because the IRS and Treasury
Department believe that these issues are
adequately addressed by the rules adopted
to implement the continuity of business
enterprise requirement. See T.D. 8760,
1998–1 C.B. 803 [63 FR 4174]. Simi-
larly, the rules relating to the continuity of
business enterprise requirement have been
broadened over the years to permit trans-
actions that adequately preserve the link
2007–47 I.R.B.1026November 19, 2007

between the former T shareholders and the
T business assets. Under §1.368–1(d), as
in effect prior to these final regulations, the
COBE requirement generally is satisfied
as long as a member of the qualified group
(or, in certain cases, a partnership) either
continues T’s historic business or uses a
significant portion of T’s historic business
assets in a business. Aqualified groupis
defined in §1.368–1(d)(4)(ii), as in effect
prior to these final regulations, as one or
more chains of corporations connected
through stock ownership with the issuing
corporation, but only if the issuing cor-
poration owns directly stock meeting the
requirements of section 368(c) in at least
one of the corporations, and stock meeting
the requirements of section 368(c) in each
of the corporations (other than the issuing
corporation) is owned directly by one of
the other corporations.
These final regulations continue the
trend of broadening the rules regarding
transfers of assets or stock following an
otherwise tax-free reorganization where
the transaction adequately preserves the
link between the former T shareholders
and the T business assets. Accordingly,
the definition of a “qualified group” in
§1.368–1(d)(4)(ii) and the rules regard-
ing stock or asset transfers in §1.368–2(k)
have been expanded. Conforming changes
to §1.368–2(f), relating to the definition
of “a party to a reorganization,” also have
been made.
A.Continuity of Business Enterprise
(COBE) Regulations
Several commentators urged that the
definition of “qualified group” under
§1.368–1(d)(4)(ii) should not be restricted
by the control requirement of section
368(c), but rather should be expanded
to parallel the definition of an affiliated
group under section 1504(a). The IRS
and Treasury Department have declined
to make this change, primarily because
the section 368(c) definition of control is a
major structural component underlying the
statutory framework of the reorganization
provisions. On the other hand, the IRS and
Treasury Department have concluded that
it is consistent with reorganization policy
to expand the definition of a qualified
group. Specifically, §1.368–1(d)(4)(ii), as
revised by this Treasury decision, permits
qualified group members to aggregate
their direct stock ownership of a corpora-
tion in determining whether they own the
requisite section 368(c) control in such
corporation (provided that the issuing cor-
poration owns directly stock meeting such
control requirement in at least one other
corporation). This aggregation concept is
similar to the one found in section 1504(a).
The IRS and Treasury Department believe
that aggregating stock ownership within
the qualified group adequately preserves
the link between the former T sharehold-
ers and the T business assets while further
facilitating the post-acquisition relocation
of assets and stock as necessary within the
group.
Finally, as discussed in section B.3. of
this preamble, and in response to com-
ments, the COBE regulations have been
expanded to provide that if members of
the qualified group own interests in a part-
nership that meets requirements equivalent
to the control definition in section 368(c),
any stock owned by such partnership is
treated as owned by members of the quali-
fied group. Thus, for example, following a
reorganization under section 368(a)(1)(B),
T remains a member of the qualified group
upon a transfer of the T stock to a part-
nership in which members of the qualified
group own all the interests. See section
B.3. of this preamble. Similarly, a wholly
owned subsidiary of a partnership in which
members of the qualified group own all the
interests will be a member of the quali-
fied group. Accordingly, following a reor-
ganization under section 368(a)(1)(A), the
acquiring corporation may transfer the T
assets to the subsidiary (either directly or
through the partnership) without violating
the COBE requirement.
B.Section 1.368–2(k)
As provided in §1.368–1(a), a transac-
tion must be evaluated under all relevant
provisions of law, including the step trans-
action doctrine, in determining whether
it qualifies as a reorganization under sec-
tion 368(a). Section 1.368–2 provides
guidance regarding whether a transaction
satisfies the explicit statutory require-
ments of a particular reorganization. Sec-
tion 1.368–2(k) generally provides that
a transaction otherwise qualifying as a
reorganization will not be disqualified as
a result of certain subsequent transfers of
assets or stock. The fact that a subsequent
transfer of assets or stock is not described
in §1.368–2(k) does not necessarily pre-
clude reorganization qualification, but the
overall transaction would then be subject
to analysis under the step transaction doc-
trine.
These final regulations adopt the rules
of the proposed regulations regarding sub-
sequent transfers of assets or stock with
certain modifications. Section 1.368–2(k),
as revised by this Treasury decision, gen-
erally provides that a transaction other-
wise qualifying as a reorganization under
section 368(a) shall not be disqualified
or recharacterized as a result of one or
more subsequent transfers (or successive
transfers) of assets or stock, provided
that the COBE requirement is satisfied
and the transfer(s) qualify as “distribu-
tions” or “other transfers” (as described
in §1.368–2(k)(1), and as discussed in
section B.1. and B.2., respectively, of this
preamble).
1.Distributions
Proposed §1.368–2(k) would permit the
acquiring corporation to distribute to cer-
tain shareholders part or all of the stock
or assets acquired in a transaction other-
wise qualifying as a reorganization with-
out affecting its characterization as such.
The proposed regulations would generally
permit distributions tocertain shareholders
provided that no distributee receives “sub-
stantially all” of the acquired assets, in-
cluding the assets of a corporation whose
stock is acquired in the reorganization, or
stock constituting control of the acquired
corporation. This limitation reflected the
concern that such a transaction might be
more properly characterized as a direct ac-
quisition by the distributee. For example,
Rev. Rul. 67–274, 1967–2 C.B. 141, held
that an acquisition of T stock in a purported
reorganization under section 368(a)(1)(B)
followed by a prearranged liquidation of T
is treated as a reorganization under section
368(a)(1)(C); Rev. Rul. 72–405, 1972–2
C.B. 217, held that an acquisition of T in
a forward triangular merger followed by
a prearranged liquidation of the acquiring
corporation is treated as a reorganization
under section 368(a)(1)(C); and Rev. Rul.
2004–83, 2004–2 C.B. 157, held that a pur-
chase of T stock from the common share-
holder followed by a prearranged liquida-
November 19, 200710272007–47 I.R.B.

tion of T is treated as a reorganization un-
der section 368(a)(1)(D).
Commentators raised an administra-
tive concern that the parameters of the
“substantially all” standard are less than
certain, at least under case law, and, thus,
requested that a safe harbor test be adopted
in the final regulations. The IRS and Trea-
sury Department believe that this is a valid
concern. Accordingly, these final regula-
tions have adopted a different approach
than the “substantially all” standard of
the proposed regulations. The new ap-
proach in these final regulations focuses
on whether the distribution consists of an
amount of assets (disregarding any assets
held by the acquiring corporation, or the
merged corporation in the case of a reor-
ganization under section 368(a)(1)(A) by
reason of (a)(2)(E), prior to the transac-
tion) that would result in the distributing
corporation being treated as liquidated for
Federal income tax purposes.
The IRS and Treasury Department be-
lieve that this approach will be easier for
taxpayers to apply and the government
to administer than the “substantially all”
standard in the proposed regulations. In
addition, this approach more fully pre-
serves the analysis and conclusions set
forth in Rev. Rul. 67–274, Rev. Rul.
72–405, and Rev. Rul. 2004–83, in the
context of Congress having required the
target corporation to liquidate in all asset
reorganizations. Finally, this approach
more consistently applies the principles
of section 368(a)(2)(C) (which allows for
transfers of all of the acquired assets or
stock) to post-acquisition distributions.
Specifically, these final regulations pro-
vide that a transaction otherwise qualify-
ing as a reorganization will not be dis-
qualified or recharacterized as a result of
one or more distributions of assets, stock
of the acquired corporation, or both, pro-
vided the COBE requirement is satisfied
and the distributions do not result in a liq-
uidation of the distributing corporation for
Federal income tax purposes (disregard-
ing, for this purpose, assets held by the
acquiring corporation, or the merged cor-
poration in the case of a reorganization
under section 368(a)(1)(A) by reason of
(a)(2)(E), prior to the transaction). Ad-
ditionally, in the case of distributions of
stock of the acquired corporation, these fi-
nal regulations only protect the transaction
from disqualification or recharacterization
if the distributions consist of less than all of
the stock of the acquired corporation that
was acquired in the transaction and do not
cause the acquired corporation to cease to
be a member of the qualified group.
These final regulations also clarify
that certain indirect distributions of as-
sets are treated under §1.368–2(k) in the
same manner as a direct distribution of
those assets. For example, such an in-
direct distribution of assets can occur
where, following a transaction that other-
wise qualifies as a reorganization under
section 368(a)(1)(A), the acquiring corpo-
ration transfers a portion of the T assets
to a partnership (or acorporation) in ex-
change for an interest in the transferee
partnership (or stock in the transferee cor-
poration) in an “other transfer” described
in §1.368–2(k)(1)(ii), and then distributes
that partnership interest (or stock) to a
shareholder.
Finally, the IRS and Treasury Depart-
ment believe that distributions of assets
under these final regulations that involve
the assumption of liabilities are distin-
guishable from the transaction analyzed in
Rev. Rul. 70–107, 1970–1 C.B. 78. That
ruling considered a transaction in which
the acquiring corporation acquired all of
the target corporation’s assets in exchange
for voting stock of the acquiring corpora-
tion’s parent. In the transaction, the target
corporation’s liabilities were assumed in
part by the acquiring corporation and in
part by the acquiring corporation’s parent.
The ruling holds that the parent corpora-
tion’s direct assumption of some of the
target corporation’s liabilities violates the
solely for voting stock requirement of sec-
tion 368(a)(1)(C). These final regulations
do not implicate the fact pattern addressed
in Rev. Rul. 70–107.
2.Other transfers
Proposed §1.368–2(k) would provide,
in part, that a transaction otherwise qual-
ifying as a reorganization under section
368(a) would not be disqualified if any as-
sets or stock of a party to the reorganiza-
tion, other than the stock of the issuing cor-
poration, is subsequently transferred to a
member of the qualified group. Commen-
tators asked that the reference to transfers
of stock of the issuing corporation be re-
moved, stating that the effect, if any, of a
transfer of the stock of the issuing corpo-
ration is adequately addressed by the con-
tinuity of interest rules under §1.368–1(e).
The IRS and Treasury Department agree.
In response to this comment (and com-
ments regarding the interaction with the
definition of a party to the reorganization
in §1.368–2(f)), this provision has been re-
vised to refer to the assets or stock of the
acquired corporation, the acquiring corpo-
ration, or the surviving corporation, as the
case may be.
Accordingly, these final regulations
provide that a transaction otherwise qual-
ifying as a reorganization will not be
disqualified or recharacterized as a result
of one or more transfers (that do not con-
stitute distributions) of assets or stock,
or both, of the acquired corporation, the
acquiring corporation, or the surviving
corporation, as the case may be, provided
the COBE requirement is satisfied, and
the acquired corporation, the acquiring
corporation, or the surviving corporation,
as the case may be, does not terminate its
corporate existence in connection with the
transfer(s). In the case of transfers of stock
of the acquired corporation, the acquiring
corporation, or the surviving corporation,
as the case may be, these final regula-
tions only protect the transaction from
disqualification or recharacterization if
the transfers do not cause such corporation
to cease to be a member of the qualified
group.
3.Transfers of stock to partnerships
Example 3of former §1.368–2(k), is-
sued January 28, 1998 (63 FR 4174),
involved a transfer of stock of the ac-
quired corporation to a partnership. In
the example, P acquired all the stock of
T solely in exchange for P stock in a
transaction that otherwise qualified as a
reorganization under section 368(a)(1)(B).
Immediately thereafter, P transferred the
T stock to members of its qualified group,
whothentransferredtheTstocktoapart-
nership all of the interests in which were
owned by such members. The example
concludes that because the transfer of T
stock to the partnership is not described
in §1.368–2(k), the characterization of the
transaction must be determined under rel-
evant provisions of law, including the step
transaction doctrine. The example fur-
ther concludes that the transaction fails to
meet the control requirement of a reorga-
2007–47 I.R.B.1028November 19, 2007

nization described in section 368(a)(1)(B)
because immediately after the transaction
the acquiring corporation does not have
control of T. The preamble to the proposed
regulations indicated that the IRS and
Treasury Department were reexamining
the conclusion set forth inExample 3and
requested comments in this regard. Con-
sequently,Example 3was not included in
the proposed regulations. Comments were
received and considered in the course of
studying this issue.
After further examination, the IRS and
Treasury Department have concluded that
transfers of stock of a corporation to a con-
trolled partnership (that is, one in which
members of the qualified group own in-
terests meeting requirements equivalent
to section 368(c)) adequately preserve the
link between the former T shareholders
and the T business assets. This section
368(c) equivalent control standard is ap-
plied to transfers of stock to a partnership
in order to protect the section 368(c) con-
trol requirement applicable to triangular
and stock acquisition reorganizations. Ac-
cordingly, these finalregulations reverse
the conclusion reached inExample 3of
former §1.368–2(k).
To accommodate these policy consid-
erations, the final regulations permit both
distributions of stock of the acquired cor-
poration and other transfers of stock of the
acquired corporation, the acquiring corpo-
ration, or the surviving corporation, as the
case may be, provided the transfer of stock
does not cause the transferred corporation
to cease to be a member of the COBE qual-
ified group. To that end, as described in
section A. of this preamble, the COBE reg-
ulations have been expanded to provide
that if members of the qualified group own
interests in a partnership that meet require-
ments equivalent to the control definition
insection368(c),anystockownedbysuch
partnership is attributed to and treated as
owned by members of the qualified group.
Accordingly, this full stock attribution rule
treats partnerships in a manner similar to
members of the COBE qualified group.
Special Analyses
It has been determined that this Trea-
sury decision is not a significant regula-
tory action as defined in Executive Order
12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment
is not required. It also has been determined
that section 553(b) of the Administrative
Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does
not apply to these regulations and, because
these regulations do not impose a collec-
tion of information on small entities, the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chap-
ter 6) does not apply. Therefore, a Regu-
latory Flexibility Analysis is not required.
Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Inter-
nal Revenue Code, these regulations have
been submitted to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Admin-
istration for comment on their impact on
small businesses.
Drafting Information
The principal author of these final reg-
ulations is Mary W. Lyons of the Office
of Associate Chief Counsel (Corporate).
However, other personnel from the IRS
and Treasury Department participated in
their development.
Availability of IRS Documents
IRS revenue rulings, procedures, and
notices cited in this preamble are made
available by the Superintendent of Docu-
ments, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, DC 20402.
*****
Adoption of Amendments to the
Regulations
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended
as follows:
PART 1—INCOME TAXES
Paragraph 1. The authority citation for
part 1 continues to read, in part, as follows:
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
Par. 2. Section 1.368–1 is amended as
follows:
1. Paragraph (d)(4)(ii) is revised.
2. Paragraph (d)(4)(iii)(D) is added.
3. Paragraph (d)(4)(iv) is revised.
4. Paragraph (d)(5) introductory text is
revised.
5. In paragraph (d)(5),Examples 7
through12are redesignated asExamples
8through13, respectively, and newExam-
ples 7,14,and15are added.
6. In paragraph (d)(5), the first sen-
tences of paragraph (i) in redesignatedEx-
amples 9,10,and12are revised.
The revisions and additions read as fol-
lows:
§1.368–1 Purpose and scope of exception
of reorganization exchanges.
*****
(d) * * *
(4) * * *
(ii)Qualified group.A qualified group
is one or more chains of corporations con-
nected through stock ownership with the
issuing corporation, but only if the issuing
corporation owns directly stock meet-
ing the requirements of section 368(c)
in at least one other corporation, and
stock meeting the requirements of section
368(c) in each of the corporations (except
the issuing corporation) is owned directly
(or indirectly as provided in paragraph
(d)(4)(iii)(D) of this section) by one or
more of the other corporations.
(iii) * * *
(D)Stock attributed from certain part-
nerships.Solely for purposes of paragraph
(d)(4)(ii) of this section, if members of the
qualified group own interests in a partner-
ship meeting requirements equivalent to
section 368(c) (a section 368(c) controlled
partnership), any stock owned by the sec-
tion 368(c) controlled partnership shall be
treated as owned by members of the qual-
ified group. Solely for purposes of de-
termining whether a lower-tier partnership
is a section 368(c) controlled partnership,
any interest in a lower-tier partnership that
is owned by a section 368(c) controlled
partnership shall be treated as owned by
members of the qualified group.
(iv)Effective/applicability dates. Para-
graphs (d)(4)(i) and (d)(4)(iii) (other than
paragraph (d)(4)(iii)(D)) of this section ap-
ply to transactions occurring after January
28, 1998, except that they do not apply
to any transaction occurring pursuant to a
written agreement which is binding on Jan-
uary 28, 1998, and at all times thereafter.
Paragraphs (d)(4)(ii) and (d)(4)(iii)(D) of
this section apply to transactions occurring
on or after October 25, 2007, except that
they do not apply to any transaction occur-
ring pursuant to a written agreement which
is binding before October 25, 2007, and at
all times after that.
(5)Examples. The following exam-
ples illustrate this paragraph (d). All the
corporations have only one class of stock
outstanding. The preceding sentence and
November 19, 200710292007–47 I.R.B.

paragraph (d)(5)Example 6andExample 8
throughExample 13apply to transactions
occurring after January 28, 1998, except
that they do not apply to any transaction
occurring pursuant to a written agreement
which is binding on January 28, 1998, and
at all times thereafter. Paragraph (d)(5)
Example 7,Example 14,andExample 15
applytotransactionsoccurringonoraf-
ter October 25, 2007, except that they do
not apply to any transaction occurring pur-
suant to a written agreement which is bind-
ing before October 25, 2007, and at all
times after that. Theexamples read as fol-
lows:
*****
Example 7.Transfers of acquired stock to mem-
bers of the qualified group — continuity of business
enterprise satisfied.(i)Facts. The facts are the same
asExample 6, except that, instead of P acquiring the
assets of T, HC acquires all of the outstanding stock of
T in exchange solely for stock of P. In addition, as part
of the plan of reorganization, HC transfers 10 percent
of the stock of T to each of subsidiaries S–1 through
S–10. T will continue to operate an auto parts dis-
tributorship. Without regard to whether the transac-
tion satisfies the COBE requirement, the transaction
qualifies as a triangular B reorganization (as defined
in §1.358–6(b)(2)(iv)).
(ii)Continuity of business enterprise. Under para-
graph (d)(4)(i) of this section, P is treated as holding
the assets and conducting the business of T because
T is a member of the qualified group (as defined in
paragraph (d)(4)(ii) of this section). The COBE re-
quirement of paragraph (d)(1) of this section is satis-
fied.
*****
Example 9.***(i)Facts. The facts are the same
asExample 8, except that S–3 transfers the historic T
business to PRS in exchangefor a 1 percent interest
in PRS.
(ii) * * *
Example 10.***(i)Facts. The facts are the
same asExample 8, except that S–3 transfers the his-
toric T business to PRS in exchange for a 33
1
/3-per-
cent interest in PRS, and no member of P’s qualified
group performs active and substantial management
functions for the ski boot business operated in PRS.
*****
Example 12.***(i)Facts. The facts are the
same asExample 11, except that S–1 transfers all the
T assets to PRS, and P and X each transfer cash to
PRS in exchange for partnership interests. * * *
*****
Example 14. Transfer of acquired stock to a part-
nership — continuity of business enterprise satisfied.
(i)Facts. Pursuant to a plan of reorganization, the
T shareholders transfer all of their T stock to a sub-
sidiary of P, S–1, solely in exchange for P stock. In
addition, as part of the plan of reorganization, S–1
transfers the T stock to its subsidiary, S–2, and S–2
transfers the T stock to its subsidiary, S–3. S–2 and
S–3 form a new partnership, PRS. Immediately there-
after, S–3 transfers all of the T stock to PRS in ex-
changeforan80percentinterestinPRS,andS–2
transfers cash to PRS in exchange for a 20 percent
interest in PRS.
(ii)Continuity of business enterprise.Members
of the qualified group, in the aggregate, own all of
the interests in PRS. Because these interests in PRS
meet requirements equivalent to section 368(c), under
paragraph (d)(4)(iii)(D) of this section, the T stock
ownedbyPRSistreatedasownedbymembersof
the qualified group. P is treated as holding all of the
businesses and assets of T because T is a member of
the qualified group (as defined in paragraph (d)(4)(ii)
of this section). The COBE requirement of paragraph
(d)(1) of this section is satisfied because P is treated
as continuing T’s business.
Example 15.Transfer of acquired stock to a part-
nership — continuity of business enterprise not satis-
fied.(i)Facts. The facts are the same as inExample
14,except that S–3 and U, an unrelated corporation,
form a new partnership, PRS, and, immediately there-
after, S–3 transfers all of the T stock to PRS in ex-
change for a 50 percent interest in PRS, and U trans-
fers cash to PRS in exchange for a 50 percent interest
in PRS.
(ii)Continuity of business enterprise.Members
ofthequalifiedgroup,intheaggregate,own50per-
cent of the interests in PRS. Because these interests in
PRS do not meet requirements equivalent to section
368(c), the T stock owned by PRS is not treated as
owned by members of the qualified group under para-
graph (d)(4)(iii)(D) of this section. P is not treated as
holding all of the businesses and assets of T because T
has ceased to be a member of the qualified group (as
defined in paragraph (d)(4)(ii) of this section). The
COBE requirement of paragraph (d)(1) of this section
is not satisfied because P is not treated as continuing
T’s business or using T’s historic business assets in a
business.
*****
Par. 3. Section 1.368–2 is amended by:
1. Adding three sentences at the end of
paragraph (f).
2. Revising paragraphs (j)(3)(ii) and
(iv).
3. Removing the first sentence of para-
graph (j)(3)(iii) and adding two new sen-
tences at the beginning of the paragraph.
4. Revising paragraph (k).
The additions and the revisions read as
follows:
§1.368–2 Definition of terms.
*****
(f) * * * If a transaction otherwise
qualifies as a reorganization under section
368(a)(1)(B) or as a reverse triangular
merger (as defined in §1.358–6(b)(2)(iii)),
the target corporation (in the case of a
transaction that otherwise qualifies as a re-
organization under section 368(a)(1)(B))
or the surviving corporation (in the case
of a transaction that otherwise qualifies
as a reverse triangular merger) remains a
party to the reorganization even though
its stock or assets are transferred in a
transaction described in paragraph (k)
of this section. If a transaction other-
wise qualifies as a forward triangular
merger (as defined in §1.358–6(b)(2)(i)),
a triangular B reorganization (as de-
fined in §1.358–6(b)(2)(iv)), a trian-
gular C reorganization (as defined in
§1.358–6(b)(2)(ii)), or a reorganization
under section 368(a)(1)(G) by reason of
section 368(a)(2)(D), the acquiring corpo-
ration remains a party to the reorganization
even though its stock is transferred in a
transaction described in paragraph (k) of
this section. The two preceding sentences
apply to transactions occurring on or af-
ter October 25, 2007, except that they
do not apply to any transaction occurring
pursuant to a written agreement which is
binding before October 25, 2007, and at
all times after that.
*****
(j) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) Except as provided in paragraph (k)
of this section, the controlling corporation
must control the surviving corporation im-
mediately after the transaction.
(iii) After the transaction, the surviving
corporation must hold substantially all of
its own properties and substantially all of
the properties of the merged corporation
(other than stock of the controlling corpo-
ration distributed in the transaction). The
surviving corporation may transfer such
properties as provided in paragraph (k) of
this section. * * *
(iv) Paragraph (j)(3)(ii) and the first
two sentences of paragraph (j)(3)(iii) of
this section apply to transactions occurring
on or after October 25, 2007, except that
they do not apply to any transaction occur-
ring pursuant to a written agreement which
is binding before October 25, 2007, and
at all times thereafter. The remainder of
paragraph (j)(3)(iii) of this section applies
to transactions occurring after January 28,
1998, except that it does not apply to any
transaction occurring pursuant to a written
agreement which is binding on January
28, 1998, and at all times after that.
*****
(k)Certain transfers of assets or stock
in reorganizations—(1)General rule.A
transaction otherwise qualifying as a re-
organization under section 368(a) shall
not be disqualified or recharacterized as
2007–47 I.R.B.1030November 19, 2007

a result of one or more subsequent trans-
fers (or successive transfers) of assets or
stock, provided that the requirements of
§1.368–1(d) are satisfied and the trans-
fer(s) are described in either paragraph
(k)(1)(i) or (k)(1)(ii) of this section.
(i)Distributions.One or more distribu-
tions to shareholders (including distribu-
tion(s) that involve the assumption of li-
abilities) are described in this paragraph
(k)(1)(i) if—
(A) The property distributed consists
of—
(1) Assets of the acquired corporation,
the acquiring corporation, or the surviving
corporation, as the case may be, or an in-
terest in an entity received in exchange for
such assets in a transfer described in para-
graph (k)(1)(ii) of this section;
(2) Stock of the acquired corporation
provided that such distribution(s) of stock
do not cause the acquired corporation to
cease to be a member of the qualified
group (as defined in §1.368–1(d)(4)(ii));
or
(3) A combination thereof; and
(B) The aggregate of such distributions
does not consist of—
(1) An amount of assets of the acquired
corporation, the acquiring corporation
(disregarding assets held prior to the po-
tential reorganization), or the surviving
corporation (disregarding assets of the
merged corporation), as the case may be,
that would result in a liquidation of such
corporation for Federal income tax pur-
poses; or
(2) All of the stock of the acquired cor-
poration that was acquired in the transac-
tion.
(ii)Other Transfers. One or more other
transfers are described in this paragraph
(k)(1)(ii) if—
(A) The transfer(s) are not described in
paragraph (k)(1)(i) of this section;
(B) The property transferred consists
of—
(1) Part or all of the assets of the ac-
quired corporation, the acquiring corpora-
tion, or the surviving corporation, as the
case may be;
(2) Part or all of the stock of the ac-
quired corporation, the acquiring corpora-
tion, or the surviving corporation, as the
case may be, provided that such transfer(s)
of stock do not cause such corporation
to cease to be a member of the qualified
group (as defined in §1.368–1(d)(4)(ii));
or
(3) A combination thereof; and
(C) The acquired corporation, the ac-
quiring corporation, or the surviving cor-
poration, as the case may be, does not ter-
minate its corporate existence in connec-
tion with the transfer(s).
(2)Examples. The following examples
illustrate the application of this paragraph
(k). Except as otherwise noted, P is the
issuing corporation, and T is an unrelated
target corporation. All corporations have
only one class of stock outstanding. T
operates a bakery that supplies delectable
pastries and cookies to local retail stores.
The acquiring corporate group produces a
variety of baked goods for nationwide dis-
tribution. Except as otherwise noted, P
owns all of the stock of S–1 and 80 percent
of the stock of S–4, S–1 owns 80 percent
of the stock of S–2 and 50 percent of the
stock of S–5, S–2 owns 80 percent of the
stock of S–3, and S–4 owns the remaining
50 percent of the stock of S–5. The exam-
ples are as follows:
Example 1.Transfers of acquired assets to mem-
bers of the qualified group after a reorganization un-
der section 368(a)(1)(C).(i)Facts. Pursuant to a plan
of reorganization, T transfers all of its assets to S–1
solely in exchange for P stock, which T distributes to
its shareholders, and S–1’s assumption of T’s liabil-
ities. In addition, pursuant to the plan, S–1 transfers
all of the T assets to S–2, and S–2 transfers all of the
T assets to S–3.
(ii)Analysis. Under this paragraph (k), the trans-
action, which otherwise qualifies as a reorganization
under section 368(a)(1)(C), is not disqualified by the
successive transfers of all of the T assets to S–2 and
from S–2 to S–3 because the transfers are not distri-
butions described in paragraph (k)(1)(i) of this sec-
tion, the transfers consist of part or all of the assets of
the acquiring corporation, the acquiring corporation
does not terminate its corporate existence in connec-
tion with the transfers, and the transaction satisfies
the requirements of §1.368–1(d).
Example 2.Distribution of acquired assets to a
member of the qualified group after a reorganization
under section 368(a)(1)(C).(i)Facts.Pursuanttoa
plan of reorganization, T transfers all of its assets
to S–1 solely in exchange for P stock, which T dis-
tributes to its shareholders, and S–1’s assumption of
T’s liabilities. In addition, pursuant to the plan, S–1
distributes half of the T assets to P, and P assumes half
of the T liabilities.
(ii)Analysis. Under this paragraph (k), the trans-
action, which otherwise qualifies as a reorganization
under section 368(a)(1)(C), is not disqualified by the
distribution of half of the T assets from S–1 to P, or
P’s assumption of half of the T liabilities from S–1,
because the distribution consists of assets of the ac-
quiring corporation, the distribution does not consist
of an amount of S–1’s assets that would result in a liq-
uidation of S–1 for Federal income tax purposes (dis-
regarding S–1’s assets held prior to the acquisition of
T), and the transaction satisfies the requirements of
§1.368–1(d).
Example 3.Indirect distribution of acquired as-
sets to a member of the qualified group after a reor-
ganization under section 368(a)(1)(C).(i)Facts.The
facts are the same asExample 2, except that, pursuant
to the plan, S–1 contributes half of the T assets to
newly formed S–6, S–6 assumes half of the T liabili-
ties, and S–1 distributes all of the S–6 stock to P.
(ii)Analysis. Under this paragraph (k), the trans-
action, which otherwise qualifies as a reorganization
under section 368(a)(1)(C), is not disqualified by the
transfer of half of the T assets to S–6 and the distri-
bution of the S–6 stock to P because the transfer of
half of the T assets to S–6 is described in paragraph
(k)(1)(ii) of this section, the distribution of the S–6
stock to P is an indirect distribution of assets of the
acquiring corporation, the distribution does not con-
sist of an amount of S–1’s assets that would result in
a liquidation of S–1 for Federal income tax purposes
(disregarding S–1’s assets held prior to the acquisi-
tion of T), and the transaction satisfies the require-
ments of §1.368–1(d).
Example 4.Distribution of acquired stock to a
controlled partnership after a reorganization under
section 368(a)(1)(B).(i)Facts. P owns 80 percent of
the stock of S–1, and an 80-percent interest in PRS, a
partnership. S–4 owns the remaining 20-percent in-
terest in PRS. PRS owns the remaining 20 percent of
the stock of S–1. Pursuant to a plan of reorganization,
the T shareholders transfer all of their T stock to S–1
solely in exchange for P stock. In addition, pursuant
to the plan, S–1 distributes 90 percent of the T stock
to PRS in redemption of 5 percent of the stock of S–1
owned by PRS.
(ii)Analysis. Under this paragraph (k), the trans-
action, which otherwise qualifies as a reorganization
under section 368(a)(1)(B), is not disqualified by the
distribution of 90 percent of the T stock from S–1
to PRS because the distribution consists of less than
all of the stock of the acquired corporation that was
acquired in the transaction, the distribution does not
cause T to cease to be a member of the qualified group
(as defined in §1.368–1(d)(4)(ii)), and the transaction
satisfies the requirements of §1.368–1(d).
Example 5.Transfer of acquired stock to a non-
controlled partnership.(i)Facts. Pursuant to a plan,
the T shareholders transfer all of their T stock to S–1
solely in exchange for P stock. In addition, as part of
the plan, T distributes half of its assets to S–1, S–1
assumes half of the T liabilities, and S–1 transfers the
T stock to S–2. S–2 and U, an unrelated corporation,
form a new partnership, PRS. Immediately thereafter,
S–2 transfers all of the T stock to PRS in exchange for
a 50 percent interest in PRS, and U transfers cash to
PRS in exchange for a 50 percent interest in PRS.
(ii)Analysis. Under this paragraph (k), the trans-
action, which otherwise qualifies as a reorganization
under section 368(a)(1)(B), is not disqualified by the
distribution of half of the T assets from T to S–1, or
S–1’s assumption of half of the T liabilities from T,
because the distribution consists of assets of the ac-
quired corporation, the distribution does not consist
of an amount of T’s assets that would result in a liq-
uidation of T for Federal income tax purposes, and the
transaction satisfies the requirements of §1.368–1(d).
Further, this paragraph (k) describes the transfer of
the acquired stock from S–1 to S–2, but does not de-
November 19, 200710312007–47 I.R.B.

scribe the transfer of the acquired stock from S–2
to PRS because such transfer causes T to cease to
be a member of the qualified group (as defined in
§1.368–1(d)(4)(ii)). Therefore, the characterization
of this transaction must be determined under the rele-
vant provisions of law, including the step transaction
doctrine. See §1.368–1(a).The transaction fails to
meet the control requirement of a reorganization de-
scribed in section 368(a)(1)(B) because immediately
after the acquisition of the T stock, the acquiring cor-
poration does not have control of T.
Example 6.Transfers of acquired assets to mem-
bers of the qualified group after a reorganization un-
der section 368(a)(1)(D).(i)Facts. P owns all of the
stock of T. Pursuant to a plan of reorganization, T
transfers all of its assets to S–1 solely in exchange
for S–1 stock, which T distributes to P, and S–1’s as-
sumption of T’s liabilities. In addition, pursuant to
the plan, S–1 transfers all of the T assets to S–2, and
S–2 transfers all of the T assets to S–3.
(ii)Analysis. Under this paragraph (k), the trans-
action, which otherwise qualifies as a reorganization
under section 368(a)(1)(D), is not disqualified by the
successive transfers of all the T assets from S–1 to
S–2 and from S–2 to S–3 because the transfers are
not distributions described in paragraph (k)(1)(i) of
this section, the transfers consist of part or all of the
assets of the acquiring corporation, the acquiring cor-
poration does not terminate its corporate existence in
connection with the transfers, and the transaction sat-
isfies the requirements of §1.368–1(d).
Example 7. Transfer of stock of the acquiring cor-
poration to a member of the qualified group after a
reorganization under section 368(a)(1)(A) by reason
of section 368(a)(2)(D).(i)Facts.Pursuanttoaplan
of reorganization, S–1 acquires all of the T assets in
the merger of T into S–1. In the merger, the T share-
holders receive solely P stock. Also, pursuant to the
plan, P transfers all of the S–1 stock to S–4.
(ii)Analysis. Under this paragraph (k), the trans-
action, which otherwise qualifies as a reorganization
under section 368(a)(1)(A) by reason of section
368(a)(2)(D), is not disqualified by the transfer of all
of the S–1 stock to S–4 because the transfer is not a
distribution described in paragraph (k)(1)(i) of this
section, the transfer consists of part or all of the stock
of the acquiring corporation, the transfer does not
cause S–1 to cease to be a member of the qualified
group (as defined in §1.368–1(d)(4)(ii)), the ac-
quiring corporation does not terminate its corporate
existence in connection with the transfer, and the
transaction satisfies the requirements of §1.368–1(d).
Example 8.Transfer of acquired assets to a
partnership after a reorganization under section
368(a)(1)(A) by reason of section 368(a)(2)(D).(i)
Facts. Pursuant to a plan of reorganization, S–1 ac-
quires all of the T assets in the merger of T into S–1.
In the merger, the T shareholders receive solely P
stock. In addition, pursuant to the plan, S–1 transfers
all of the T assets to PRS, a partnership in which
S–1 owns a 33
1
/3-percent interest. PRS continues T’s
historic business. S–1 does not perform active and
substantial management functions as a partner with
respect to PRS’ business.
(ii)Analysis. Under this paragraph (k), the trans-
action, which otherwise qualifies as a reorganization
under section 368(a)(1)(A) by reason of section
368(a)(2)(D), is not disqualified by the transfer of
T assets from S–1 to PRS because the transfer is
not a distribution described in paragraph (k)(1)(i)
of this section, the transfer consists of part or all of
the assets of the acquiring corporation, the acquiring
corporation does not terminate its corporate existence
in connection with the transfers, and the transaction
satisfies the requirements of §1.368–1(d).
Example 9.Sale of acquired assets to a member
of the qualified group after a reorganization under
section 368(a)(1)(C).(i)Facts. Pursuant to a plan
of reorganization, T transfers all of its assets to S–1
in exchange for P stock, which T distributes to its
shareholders, and S–1’s assumption of T’s liabilities.
In addition, pursuant to the plan, S–1 sells all of the
T assets to S–5 for cash equal to the fair market value
of those assets.
(ii)Analysis. Under this paragraph (k), the trans-
action, which otherwise qualifies as a reorganization
under section 368(a)(1)(C), is not disqualified by the
sale of all of the T assets from S–1 to S–5 because the
transfer is not a distribution described in paragraph
(k)(1)(i) of this section, the transfer consists of part
or all of the assets of the acquiring corporation, the
acquiring corporation does not terminate its corpo-
rate existence in connection with the transfers, and the
transaction satisfies the requirements of §1.368–1(d).
(3)Effective/applicability date.This
paragraph (k) applies to transactions oc-
curring on or after October 25, 2007, ex-
cept that it does not apply to any transac-
tion occurring pursuant to a written agree-
ment which is binding before October 25,
2007, and at all times after that.
Kevin M. Brown,
Deputy Commissioner for
Services and Enforcement.
Approved October 16, 2007.
Eric Solomon,
Assistant Secretary of
the Treasury (Tax Policy).
(Filed by the Office of the Federal Register on October 24,
2007, 8:45 a.m., and published in the issue of the Federal
Register for October 25, 2007, 72 F.R. 60552)
Section 6404.—Abate-
ments
Ct. D. 2084
SUPREME COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES
No. 06–376 (2007)
HINCK v. UNITED STATES
CERTIORARI TO THE
UNITED STATES COURT
OF APPEALS FOR
THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
May 21, 2007
Syllabus
A 1986 amendment to the Internal
Revenue Code permits the Treasury Sec-
retary to abate interest that accrues on
unpaid federal income taxes if the in-
terest assessment is attributable to In-
ternal Revenue Service (IRS) error or
delay. 26 U.S.C. Sec. 6404(e)(1). Sub-
sequently the federal courts uniformly
held that the Secretary’s decision not
to abate was not subject to judicial re-
view. In 1996, Congress added what is
now Sec. 6404(h), which states that the
Tax Court has “jurisdiction over any ac-
tion brought by a taxpayer who meets
the requirements referred to in section
7430(c)(4)(A)(ii) to determine whether
the Secretary’s failure to abate . . . was
an abuse of discretion, and may order an
abatement, if such action is brought within
180 days after the date of the mailing of
the Secretary’s finaldetermination not to
abate. . . .” Sec. 6404(h)(1). Section
7430(c)(4)(A)(ii) in turn incorporates 28
U.S.C. Sec. 2412(d)(2)(B), which refers
to individuals with a net worth not ex-
ceeding $2 million and businesses with a
net worth not exceeding $7 million. The
IRS denied petitioner Hincks’ request for
abatement of interest assessed in 1999 for
the period March 21, 1989, to April 1,
1993. The Hincks then filed suit in the
Court of Federal Claims seeking review
of the refusal to abate. The court granted
the Government’s motion to dismiss, and
the Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that
Sec. 6404(h) vests exclusive jurisdiction
to review interest abatement claims in the
Tax Court.
Held: the Tax Court provides the exclu-
sive forum for judicial review of a failure
to abate interest under Sec. 6404(e)(1).
This Court’s analysis is governed by the
well-established principle that, in most
contexts, “‘a precisely drawn, detailed
statute pre-empts more general reme-
dies,’”EC Term of Years Trust v. United
States, 550 U.S.
,;itisalsoguided
by the recognition that when Congress
enacts a specific remedy when none was
2007–47 I.R.B.1032November 19, 2007

previously recognized, or when previous
remedies were “problematic,” the remedy
provided is generally regarded as exclu-
sive,Block v. North Dakota ex rel. Board
of Univ. and School Lands,461 U.S. 273,
285. Section 6404(h) fits the bill on both
counts. In a single sentence, it provides a
forum for adjudication, a limited class of
potential plaintiffs, a statute of limitations,
a standard of review,and authorization for
judicial relief; it was also enacted against
a backdrop of decisions uniformly reject-
ing the possibility of any review of the
Secretary’s Sec. 6404(e)(1) determina-
tions. Though Congress failed explicitly
to define the Tax Court’s jurisdiction as
exclusive, it is quite plain that the terms
of Sec. 6404(h) — a “precisely drawn,
detailed statute” filling a perceived hole in
the law — control all requests for review
of Sec. 6404(e)(1) decisions, including
the forum for adjudication. The Hincks
correctly argue that Congress’s provi-
sion of an abuse of discretion standard
removed one of the obstacles courts had
held foreclosed judicial review of such de-
terminations, but Congress did not simply
supply this single missing ingredient in
enacting Sec. 6404(h). Rather, it set out
a carefully circumscribed, time-limited,
plaintiff-specific provision, which also
precisely defined the appropriate forum.
This Court will not isolate one feature of
this statute and use it to permit taxpayers
to circumvent the other limiting features in
thesamestatute, such as a shorter statute
of limitations than in general refund suits
or a net-worth ceiling for plaintiffs eligible
to bring suit. Taxpayers could “effortlessly
evade” these specific limitations by bring-
ing interest abatement claims as tax refund
actions in the district courts or the Court of
Federal Claims, disaggregating a statute
Congress plainly envisioned as a package
deal.EC Term of Years Trust, supra,at
. Equally unavailing are the Hincks’
contentions that reading Sec. 6404(h)
to vest exclusive jurisdiction in the Tax
Court impliedly repeals the pre-existing
jurisdiction of the district courts and Court
of Federal Claims, runs contrary to the
structure of tax controversy jurisdiction,
and would lead to the “unreasonable”
result that taxpayers with net worths ex-
ceeding the specified ceilings would be
foreclosed from seeking judicial review of
Sec. 6404(e)(1) refusals to abate. Pp. 6–9.
446F.3d1307affirmed.
ROBERTS, C.J., delivered the opinion
for a unanimous Court.
SUPREME COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES
No. 06–376 (2007)
HINCK v. UNITED STATES
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE
UNITED STATES COURT
OF APPEALS FOR
THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
May 21, 2007
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered
the opinion of the Court.
Bad things happen if you fail to pay
federal income taxes when due. One of
them is that interest accrues on the unpaid
amount. Sometimes it takes a while for
the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to de-
termine that taxes should have been paid
that were not. Section 6404(e)(1) of the In-
ternal Revenue Code permits the Secretary
of the Treasury to abate interest—to for-
give it, partially or in whole—if the assess-
ment of interest on a deficiency is attribut-
able to unreasonable error or delay on the
part of the IRS. Section 6404(h) allows for
judicial review of the Secretary’s decision
not to grant such relief. The question pre-
sented in this case is whether this review
may be obtained only in the Tax Court, or
mayalsobesecuredinthedistrictcourts
and the Court of Federal Claims. We hold
that the Tax Court provides the exclusive
forum for judicial review of a refusal to
abate interest under Sec. 6404(e)(1), and
affirm.
I
The Internal Revenue Code provides
that if any amount of assessed federal in-
come tax is not paid “on or before the
last date prescribed for payment,” inter-
est “shall be paid for the period from such
last date to the date paid.” 26 U.S.C. Sec.
6601(a). Section 6404 of the Code autho-
rizes the Secretary of the Treasury to abate
any tax or related liability in certain cir-
cumstances. As part of the Tax Reform
Act of 1986, Congress amended Sec. 6404
to add subsection (e(1), which, as enacted,
provided in pertinent part:
“In the case of any assessment of inter-
est on . . . any deficiency attributable
in whole or in part to any error or delay
by an officer or employee of the Inter-
nal Revenue Service (acting in his offi-
cial capacity) in performing a ministe-
rial act . . . the Secretary may abate
the assessment of all or any part of such
interest for any period.” 26 U.S.C. Sec.
6404(e)(1) (1994 ed.).
In the years following passage of Sec.
6404(e)(1), the federal courts uniformly
held that the Secretary’s decision not to
grant an abatement was not subject to
judicial review. See,e.g., Argabright v.
United States, 35 F.3d 472, 476 (CA9
1994);Selman v. United States, 941 F.2d
1060, 1064 (CA10 1991);Horton Homes,
Inc. v. United States, 936 F.2d 548, 554
(CA11 1991); see alsoBax v. Commis-
sioner, 13 F.3d 54, 58 (CA2 1993). These
decisions recognizedthat Sec. 6404(e)(1)
gave the Secretary complete discretion
to determine whether to abate interest,
“neither indicat[ing]that such authority
should be used universally nor provid[ing]
any basis for distinguishing between the
instances in which abatement should and
should not be granted.”Selman, supra,at
1063. Any decision by the Secretary was
accordingly “committed to agency dis-
cretion by law” under the Administrative
Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 701(a)(2),
and thereby insulated from judicial review.
See,e.g., Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592,
599 (1988);Heckler v. Chaney,470U.S.
821, 830 (1985).
In 1996, as part of the Taxpayer Bill
of Rights 2, Congress again amended Sec.
6404, adding what is now subsection (h).
As relevant, that provision states:
“Review of denial of request for abate-
ment of interest. — “1) In gen-
eral.—The Tax Court shall have ju-
risdiction over any action brought by a
taxpayer who meets the requirements
referred to in section 7430(c)(4)(A)(ii)
to determine whether the Secretary’s
failure to abate interest under this sec-
tion was an abuse of discretion, and
may order an abatement, if such action
is brought within 180 days after the
date of the mailing of the Secretary’s
final determination not to abate such
interest.” 26 U.S.C. Sec. 6404(h)(1)
(2000 ed., Supp. IV).
Section 7430(c)(4)(A)(ii) in turn in-
corporates 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2412(d)(2)(B),
November 19, 200710332007–47 I.R.B.

which refers to individuals with a net
worth not exceeding $2 million and busi-
nesses with a net worth not exceeding $7
million. Congress made subsection (h)
effective for all requests for abatement
submitted to the IRS after July 30, 1996,
regardless of the tax year involved. Sec.
302(b), 110 Stat.1458.
1
II
In 1986, petitioner John Hinck was a
limited partner in an entity called Agri-Cal
Venture Associates (ACVA). Along with
his wife, petitioner Pamela Hinck, Hinck
filed a joint return for 1986 reporting his
share of losses from the partnership. The
IRS later examined the tax returns for
ACVA and proposed adjustments to de-
ductions that the partnership had claimed
for 1984, 1985, and 1986. In 1990, the
IRS issued a final notice regarding the
partnership’s returns, disallowing tens of
millions of dollars of deductions. While
the partnership sought administrative re-
view of this decision, the Hincks, in May
1996, made an advance remittance of
$93,890 to the IRS toward any personal
deficiency that might result from a final
adjustment of ACVA’s returns. In March,
1999, the Hincks reached a settlement with
the IRS concerning the ACVA partnership
adjustments, to the extent they affected
the Hincks’ return. Shortly thereafter, as a
result of the adjustments, the IRS imposed
additional liability against the Hincks:
$16,409 in tax and $21,669.22 in interest.
The IRS applied the Hincks’ advance re-
mittance to this amount and refunded them
the balance of $55,811.78.
The Hincks filed a claim with the IRS
contending that, because of IRS errors
and delays, the interest assessed against
them for the period from March 21, 1989,
to April 1, 1993, should be abated under
Sec. 6404(e)(1). The IRS denied the re-
quest. The Hincks then filed suit in the
United States Court of Federal Claims
seeking review of the refusal to abate.
That court granted the Government’s mo-
tion to dismiss, 64 Fed. Cl. 71, 81 (2005),
and the United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit affirmed, 446 F.3d
1307, 1313–1314 (2006), holding that Sec.
6404(h) vests exclusive jurisdiction to re-
view interest abatement claims under Sec.
6404(e)(1) in the Tax Court. Because this
decision conflicted with the Fifth Circuit’s
decision inBeall v. United States,336
F.3d 419, 430 (2003) (holding that Sec.
6404(h) grants concurrent, rather than ex-
clusive, jurisdiction to the Tax Court), we
granted certiorari, 549 U.S.
(2007).
III
Our analysis is governed by the well-es-
tablished principle that, in most contexts,
“‘a precisely drawn, detailed statute pre-
empts more general remedies.’”EC Term
of Years Trust v. United States,550U.S.
,(2007), (slip op., at 4) (quoting
Brown v. GSA, 425 U.S. 820, 834 (1976));
see alsoBlock v. North Dakota ex rel.
Board of Univ. and School Lands,461
U.S. 273, 284–286 (1983). We are also
guided by our past recognition that when
Congress enacts a specific remedy when
no remedy was previously recognized, or
when previous remedies were “problem-
atic,” the remedy provided is generally re-
garded as exclusive.Id. at 285;Brown,
supra, at 826–829.
Section 6404(h) fits the bill on both
counts. It is a “precisely drawn detailed
statute” that, in a single sentence, provides
a forum for adjudication, a limited class of
potential plaintiffs, a statute of limitations,
a standard of review, and authorization for
judicial relief. And Congress enacted this
provision against a backdrop of decisions
uniformly rejecting the possibility of any
review for taxpayers wishing to challenge
the Secretary’s Sec. 6404(e)(1) determi-
nation. Therefore, despite Congress’s fail-
ure explicitly to define the Tax Court’s ju-
risdiction as exclusive, we think it quite
plain that the terms of Sec. 6404(h)—a
“precisely drawn, detailed statute” filling
a perceived hole in the law—control all re-
quests for review of Sec. 6404(e)(1) deter-
minations. Those terms include the forum
for adjudication.
The Hincks’ primary argument against
exclusive Tax Court jurisdiction is that
by providing a standard of review—abuse
of discretion—in Sec. 6404(h), Con-
gress eliminated the primary barrier to
judicial review that courts had previ-
ously recognized; accordingly, they main-
tain, taxpayers may seek review of Sec.
6404(e)(1) determinations under statutes
granting jurisdiction to the district courts
and the Court of Federal Claims to review
tax refund actions. See 28 U.S.C. Secs.
1346(a)(1); 1491(a)(1); 26 U.S.C. Sec.
7422(a). Or, as the Fifth Circuit reasoned:
“[T]he federal district courts have always
possessedjurisdictionover challenges
brought to section 6404(e)(1) denials[;]
they simply determined that the taxpayers
had nosubstantive rightwhatever to a
favorable exercise of the Secretary’s dis-
cretion. . . . [I]n enacting section 6404(h),
Congress indicated that such is no longer
the case, and thereby removed any im-
pediment to district court review.”Beall,
supra, at 428 (emphasis in original).
It is true that by providing an abuse
of discretion standard, Congress removed
one of the obstacles courts had held fore-
closed judicial review of Sec. 6404(e)(1)
determinations. See,e.g., Argabright,35
F.3d at 476 (noting an absence of “‘ju-
dicially manageablestandards’” (quoting
Heckler, 470 U.S. at 830)). But in en-
acting Sec. 6404(h), Congress did not
simply supply this single missing ingredi-
ent; rather, it set out a carefully circum-
scribed, time-limited, plaintiff-specific
provision which also precisely defined the
appropriate forum. We cannot accept the
Hincks’ invitation to isolate one feature
of this “precisely drawn, detailed statute”
—the portion specifying a standard of
review—and use it to permit taxpayers
to circumvent the other limiting features
Congress placed in thesamestatute—re-
strictions such as a shorter statute of
limitations than general refund suits, com-
pare Sec. 6404(h) (180-day limitations
period) with Sec. 6532(a)(1) (2-year lim-
itations period), or a net-worth ceiling for
plaintiffs eligible to bring suit. Taxpayers
could “effortlessly evade” these specific
limitations by bringing interest abatement
claims as tax refund actions in the district
courts or the Court of Federal Claims,
disaggregating a statute Congress plainly
envisioned as a package deal.EC Term of
Years Trust, supra,at
(slip op., at 5);
see alsoBlock, supra, at 284–285;Brown,
supra, 425 U.S. at 832–833.
The Hincks’ other contentions are
equally unavailing. First, they claim that
1
The Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2 also modified 26 U.S.C. Sec. 6404(e)(1)(A) to addthe word “unreasonable” before the words “error or delay” and to change “ministerial act” to “ministerial
or managerial act.” Sec. 301(a), 110 Stat. 1457. These changes, however, only apply to interest accruing on deficiencies for tax years beginning after July 30, 1996, see Sec. 301(c),ibid.,
and thus are not implicated in this case.
2007–47 I.R.B.1034November 19, 2007

reading Sec. 6404(h) to vest exclusive
jurisdiction in the Tax Court impliedly
repeals the preexisting jurisdiction of the
district courts and Court of Federal Claims,
despite our admonition that “repeals by
implication are not favored.”Morton v.
Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 549 (1974) (in-
ternal quotation marks omitted). But the
implied-repeal doctrine is not applica-
ble here, for when Congress passed Sec.
6404(h), Sec. 6404(e)(1) had been inter-
preted not to provideanyright of review
for taxpayers. There is thus no indication
of any “language on the statute books that
[Congress] wishe[d] to change,”United
States v. Fausto, 484 U.S. 439, 453 (1988),
implicitly or explicitly. Congress simply
prescribed a limited form of review where
none had previously been found to exist.
Second, the Hincks assert that vesting
jurisdiction over Sec. 6404(e)(1) abate-
ment decisions exclusively in the Tax
Court runs contrary to the “entire structure
of tax controversy jurisdiction,” Brief for
Petitioners 30, under which the Tax Court
generally hears prepayment challenges
to tax liability, see Sec. 6213(a), while
postpayment actions are brought in the
district courts or Court of Federal Claims.
In a related vein, the Hincks point out that
the Government’s position would force
taxpayers seeking postpayment review of
their tax liabilities to separate their Sec.
6404(e)(1) abatement claims from their
refund claims and bring each in a dif-
ferent court. Even assuming,arguendo,
that we were inclined to depart from the
face of the statute, these arguments are
undercut on two fronts. To begin with,
by expressly granting to the Tax Court
somejurisdiction over Sec. 6404(e)(1)
decisions, Congress has already broken
with the general scheme the Hincks iden-
tify. No one doubts that an action seeking
review of a Sec. 6404(e)(1) determination
maybemaintainedintheTaxCourteven
if the interest has already been paid, see,
e.g., Dadian v. Commissioner,87TCM
1344 (2004), ¶2004–121 RIA Memo TC,
p. 790–2004;Miller v. Commissioner,79
TCM 2213 (2000), ¶2000–195 RIA Memo
TC, p. 1120–2000, aff’d, 310 F.3d 640
(CA9 2002), and the Hincks point to no
case where the Tax Court has refused to
exercise jurisdiction under such circum-
stances.
In addition, an interest abatement claim
under Sec. 6404(e)(1) involves no ques-
tions of substantive tax law, but rather is
premised on issues of bureaucratic admin-
istration (whether, for example, there was
“error or delay” in the performance of a
“ministerial” act, Sec. 6404(e)(1)(A)). Ju-
dicial review of decisions not to abate re-
quires an evaluationof the internal pro-
cesses of the IRS, not the underlying tax
liability of the taxpayer. We find nothing
tellingly awkward about channeling such
discrete and specialized questions of ad-
ministrative operations to one particular
court, even if in some respects it “may not
appear to be efficient” as a policy matter
to separate refund and interest abatement
claims. 446 F.3d at 1316.
2
Last, the Hincks contend that Congress
would not have intended to vest jurisdic-
tion exclusively in the Tax Court, because
it would lead to the “unreasonable” result
that taxpayers with net worths greater than
$2 million (for individuals) or $7 million
(for businesses) would be foreclosed from
seeking judicial review of Sec. 6404(e)(1)
refusals to abate. Brief for Petitioners 46;
see alsoBeall, 336 F.3d at 430. But we
agree with the Federal Circuit that this out-
come “was contemplated by Congress.”
446 F.3d at 1316. The net-worth limitation
in Sec. 6404(h) reflects Congress’s judg-
ment that wealthier taxpayers are more
likely to be able to pay a deficiency before
contesting it, thereby avoiding accrual of
interest during their administrative and le-
gal challenges. In contrast, taxpayers with
comparatively fewer resources are more
likely to contest their assessed deficiency
before first paying it, thus exposing them-
selves to interest charges if their challenge
is ultimately unsuccessful. There is noth-
ing “unreasonable” about Congress’s deci-
sion to grant the possibility of judicial re-
lief only to those taxpayers most likely to
be in need of it.
3
The judgment of the United States
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is
affirmed.
It is so ordered.
2
We note that the Hincks sought only interest abatement in the Court of FederalClaims, thus failing to implicate the “claim-splitting” and efficiencyconcerns they condemn. See Brief for
Petitioners 49.
3
The Hincks also argue that the net-worth limitations on Sec. 6404(h) review violate the due process rights of those taxpayers who exceed them. The court below did not pass upon this
constitutional challenge, nor do we, for, as the Hincks concede, the record contains no findings concerning their own net worth, Brief for Petitioners 44, and they offer no reasons to deviate
from our general rule that a party “must assert his own legal rights and interests, and cannot rest his claim to relief on the legal rights or interests ofthird parties,”Kowalski v. Tesmer,543
U.S. 125, 129 (2004) (quotingWarth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499 (1975); internal quotation marks omitted).
November 19, 200710352007–47 I.R.B.

Part III. Administrative, Procedural, and Miscellaneous
Social Security Contribution
and Benefit Base for 2008
Notice 2007–92
Under the authority contain in the So-
cial Security Act ("the Act"), the Commis-
sioner, Social Security Administration, has
determined and announced (72 F.R. 60703,
dated October 24, 2007) that the contri-
bution and benefit base for remuneration
paid in 2008, and self-employment income
earned in tax years beginning in 2008 is
$102,000.
“Old-Law” Contribution and Benefit
Base
General
The “old-law” contribution and bene-
fit base for 2008 is $75,900. This is the
base that would have been effective under
the Act without the enactment of the 1977
amendments.
The “old-law” contribution and benefit
base is used by:
(a) The Railroad Retirement program
to determine certain tax liabilities and tier
II benefits payable under that program to
supplement the tier I payments which cor-
respond to basic Social Security benefits,
(b) the Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation to determine the maximum
amount of pension guaranteed under the
Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (as stated in section 230(d) of the
Social Security Act),
(c) Social Security to determine a year
of coverage in computing the special min-
imum benefit, as described earlier, and
(c) Social Security to determine a year
of coverage (acquired whenever earnings
equal or exceed 25 percent of the “old-
law” base for this purpose only) in comput-
ing benefits for persons who are also eligi-
ble to receive pensions based on employ-
ment not covered under section 210 of the
Act.
Domestic Employee Coverage
Threshold
General
The minimum amount a domestic
worker must earn so that such earnings are
covered under Social Security or Medicare
is the domestic employee coverage thresh-
old. For 2008, this threshold is $1,600.
Section 3121(x) of the Internal Revenue
Code provides the formula for increasing
the threshold.
Computation
Under the formula, the domestic em-
ployee coverage threshold amount for
2008 shall be equal to the 1995 amount
of $1,000 multiplied by the ratio of the
national average wage index for 2006 to
that for 1993. If the resulting amount is
not a multiple of $100, it shall be rounded
to the next lower multiple of $100.
Domestic Employee Coverage Threshold
Amount
Multiplying the 1995 domestic em-
ployee coverage threshold amount
($1,000) by the ratio of the national av-
erage wage index for 2006 ($38,651.41)
to that for 1993 ($23,132.67) produces
the amount of $1,670.86. We then round
this amount to $1,600. Accordingly, the
domestic employee coverage threshold
amount is $1,600 for 2008.
(Filed by the Office of the Federal Register on October 24,
2007, 8:45 a.m., and published in the issue of the Federal
Register for October 25, 2007, 72 F.R. 60703)
2007–47 I.R.B.1036November 19, 2007

Part IV. Items of General Interest
Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking and Notice of
Public Hearing
User Fees Relating to
Enrollment to Perform
Actuarial Services
REG–134923–07
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service
(IRS), Treasury.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
and notice of public hearing.
SUMMARY: This document contains pro-
posed regulations relating to user fees for
the initial and renewed enrollment to be-
come an enrolled actuary. The charging
of user fees is authorized by the Indepen-
dent Offices Appropriations Act (IOAA)
of 1952. This document also contains a
notice of public hearing on these proposed
regulations.
DATES: Written or electronic comments
must be received by November 26, 2007.
Outlines of topics to be discussed at the
public hearing scheduled for November
26, 2007, at 10 a.m., must be received by
November 19, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to:
CC:PA:LPD:PR(REG–134923–07),
room 5203, Internal Revenue Ser-
vice, PO Box 7604, Ben Franklin Sta-
tion, Washington, DC 20044. Submis-
sions may be hand-delivered Monday
through Friday between the hours of
8a.m. and4p.m.toCC:PA:LPD:PR
(REG–134923–07), Courier’s Desk, In-
ternal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitu-
tion Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC.
Alternatively, submissions may be sent
electronically via the Federal eRulemak-
ing Portal atwww.regulations.gov(IRS
REG–134923–07).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT: Concerning submissions of
comments and/or to be placed on the
building access list to attend the hearing
Richard.A.Hurst@irscounsel.treas.gov
or at (202) 622–7180; concerning cost
methodology, Eva J. Williams at (202)
435–5514; concerning the proposed reg-
ulations, Joel Rutstein at (202) 622–4940
(not toll-free numbers).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Employee Retirement Income Se-
curity Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–406)
ordered the Secretary of Labor and the
Secretary of Treasury to establish a Joint
Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries. 29
U.S.C. 1241. The Joint Board shall, by
regulation, establish reasonable standards
and qualifications for persons performing
actuarial services and the Joint Board shall
enroll such individuals who, upon appli-
cation, satisfy such standards and quali-
fications. 29 U.S.C. 1242(a). The reg-
ulations at 20 CFR Part 901, Subpart B
address eligibility for enrollment and re-
newal of enrollment. Pursuant to the Joint
Board’s bylaws, the Secretary of the Trea-
sury is to appoint an Executive Director to
theBoardwhohasthedelegated authority
to administer the Board’s enrollment pro-
gram. The Secretary of the Treasury has
delegated these functions to the Internal
Revenue Service and the costs of these ac-
tivities are borne by the Service.
20 CFR 901.11(d)(4) provides for a
reasonable non-refundable fee for appli-
cations for renewal of enrollment. Form
5434–A, “Application for Renewal of En-
rollment” presently states that the renewal
fee is $25. Proposed 26 CFR 300.7 and
300.8 establish separate $250 user fees for
the enrollment and renewal of enrollment
process. These fees represent the IRS’s
costs in administering the program, and
the $250 fee for renewal of enrollment
will supplant the $25 fee.
Authority
The IOAA of 1952 (31 U.S.C. 9701)
authorizes agencies to prescribe regula-
tions that establish charges for services
provided by the agency. The charges must
be fair and be based on the costs to the
Government, the value of the service to
the recipient, the public policy or inter-
est served, and other relevant facts. The
IOAA of 1952 provides that regulations
implementing user fees are subject to poli-
cies prescribed by the President, which are
currently set forth in OMB Circular A–25,
58 FR 38142 (July 15, 1993) (the OMB
Circular).
The OMB Circular encourages user
fees for government-provided services
that confer benefitson identifiable re-
cipients over and above those benefits
received by the general public. Under
the OMB Circular, an agency that seeks
to impose a user fee for government-pro-
vided services must calculate its full cost
of providing those services. In general,
a user fee should be set at an amount in
order for the agency to recover the cost of
providing the special service, unless the
Office of Management and Budget grants
an exception. Pursuant to the guidelines in
the OMB Circular, the IRS has calculated
its cost of providing services under the
enrolled actuaries program. The IRS has
determined that the full cost of adminis-
tering the enrollment and re-enrollment
processes is $250 per enrolled actuary per
process.
The proposed user fees will be imple-
mented under the authority of the IOAA of
1952 and the OMB Circular.
Proposed Effective Date
These regulations are proposed to apply
thirty days after the date of publication in
theFederal Registerof the final regula-
tions.
Special Analyses
It has been determined that this notice
of proposed rulemaking is not a significant
regulatory action as defined in Executive
Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory as-
sessment is not required. It is hereby cer-
tified that these regulations will not have
a significant economic impact on a sub-
stantial number of small entities. Accord-
ingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is
not required. This certification is based
on the information that follows. These
proposed rules affect enrolled actuaries,
of which there are currently 4,600 active.
The economic impact of these regulations
on any small entity would result from a
small entity, including a sole proprietor,
being required to pay a fee prescribed by
these regulations in order to obtain a par-
ticular service. The appropriate NAICS
November 19, 200710372007–47 I.R.B.

codes for enrolled actuaries relate to In-
surance Other (524298) and Administra-
tive and General Management Consulting,
Including Financial Consulting (541611).
Entities identified under these codes are
considered small under the SBA size stan-
dards (13 CFR 121.201) if their annual rev-
enue is less than $6.5 million. The IRS es-
timates that as many as 2,070 enrolled ac-
tuaries may be operating as or employed
by small entities. Therefore, the IRS has
determined that these proposed rules will
affect a substantial number of small enti-
ties. The dollar amounts of the fees are
not, however, substantial enough to have a
significant economic impact on any entity
subject to the fees. The amounts of the fees
are commensurate with, if not less than, the
amount charged by professional organiza-
tions. Persons who elect to apply for en-
rollment or renewal of enrollment also re-
ceive benefits from obtaining the enrolled
actuary designation. Pursuant to section
7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, this
notice of proposed rulemaking will be sub-
mitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
of the Small BusinessAdministration for
comment on its impact.
Comments and Public Hearing
Before these proposed regulations are
adopted as final regulations, consideration
will be given to any written (a signed origi-
nal and eight (8) copies) or electronic com-
ments that are submitted timely to the IRS.
The IRS and Treasury Department request
comments on the substance of the pro-
posed regulations, as well as on the clarity
of the proposed rules and how they can be
made easier to understand. All comments
will be available for public inspection and
copying.
A public hearing has been scheduled for
November 26, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. in room
3716. Due to building security procedures,
all visitors must present photo identifica-
tion to enter the building. Because of ac-
cess restrictions, visitors will not be ad-
mitted beyond the immediate entrance area
more than 30 minutes before the hearing
starts. For information about having your
name placed on the building access list to
attend the hearing, see the “FOR FUR-
THER INFORMATION CONTACT” sec-
tion of this preamble.
The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) ap-
ply to the hearing. Persons who wish to
present oral comments at the hearing must
submit electronic or written comments by
November 26, 2007 and an outline of the
comments to be discussed and the time
to be devoted to each topic (signed origi-
nal and eight (8) copies) by November 19,
2007. A period of ten (10) minutes will
be allotted to each person for making com-
ments. An agenda showing the scheduling
of the speakers will be prepared after the
deadline for receiving outlines has passed.
Copies of the agenda will be available free
of charge at the hearing.
Drafting Information
The principal author of these regula-
tions is Joel S. Rutstein of the Office of
the Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure &
Administration).
*****
Proposed Amendments to the
Regulations
Accordingly, 26 CFR Part 300 is pro-
posed to be amended as follows:
PART 300—USER FEES
Paragraph 1. The authority citation for
part 300 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 31 U.S.C. 9701.
Par. 2. Section 300.0 is amended as
follows:
1. Paragraphs (b)(7) and (b)(8) are
added.
2. Paragraph (c) is revised.
The additions and revision read as fol-
lows:
§300.0 User fees, in general.
*****
(b) * * *
(7) Enrolling an enrolled actuary.
(8) Renewing the enrollment of an en-
rolled actuary.
(c)Effective/applicability date.This
part 300 is applicable March 16, 1995, ex-
cept that the user fee for processing of-
fers in compromise is applicable Novem-
ber 1, 2003; the user fee for the special en-
rollment examination, enrollment, and re-
newal of enrollment for enrolled agents is
applicable November 6, 2006; the user fee
for entering into installment agreements on
or after January 1, 2007, is applicable Jan-
uary 1, 2007; the user fee for restructuring
or reinstatement of an installment agree-
ment on or after January 1, 2007, is ap-
plicable January 1, 2007; and the user fee
for the enrollment and renewal of enroll-
ment for enrolled actuaries is applicable
thirty days after the date of publication in
theFederal Registerof the final regula-
tions.
Par. 3. Section 300.7 is added to read
as follows:
§300.7 Enrollment of enrolled actuary fee.
(a)Applicability. This section applies
to the initial enrollment of enrolled actuar-
ies with the Joint Board for the Enrollment
of Actuaries pursuant to 20 CFR Part 901.
(b)Fee. The fee for initially enrolling
as an enrolled actuary with the Joint Board
for the Enrollment of Actuaries is $250.00.
(c)Person liable for the fee. The per-
sonliablefortheenrollmentfeeistheap-
plicant filing for enrollment as an enrolled
actuary with the Joint Board for the Enroll-
ment of Actuaries.
Par. 5. Section 300.8 is added to read
as follows:
§300.8 Renewal of enrollment of enrolled
actuary fee.
(a)Applicability. This section applies
to the renewal of enrollment of enrolled ac-
tuaries with the Joint Board for the Enroll-
ment of Actuaries pursuant to 20 CFR Part
901.
(b)Fee. The fee for renewal of enroll-
ment as an enrolled actuary with the Joint
Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries is
$250.00.
(c)Personliableforthefee. The person
liable for the renewal of enrollment fee is
the person renewing their enrollment as an
enrolled actuary with the Joint Board for
the Enrollment of Actuaries.
LindaE.Stiff,
Deputy Commissioner for
Services and Enforcement.
(Filed by the Office of the Federal Register on October 26,
2007, 4:29 p.m., and published in the issue of the Federal
Register for October 31, 2007, 72 F.R. 61583)
2007–47 I.R.B.1038November 19, 2007

Announcement of Disciplinary Actions Involving
Attorneys, Certified Public Accountants, Enrolled Agents,
and Enrolled Actuaries — Reinstatements, Suspensions,
Censures, Disbarments, and Resignations
Announcement 2007-104
Under Title 31, Code of Federal Regu-
lations, Part 10, attorneys, certified public
accountants, enrolled agents, and enrolled
actuaries may not accept assistance from,
or assist, any person who is under disbar-
ment or suspension from practice before
the Internal Revenue Service if the assis-
tance relates to a matter constituting prac-
tice before the Internal Revenue Service
and may not knowingly aid or abet another
person to practice before the Internal Rev-
enue Service during a period of suspen-
sion, disbarment, or ineligibility of such
other person.
To enable attorneys, certified public
accountants, enrolled agents, and enrolled
actuaries to identify persons to whom
these restrictions apply, the Director, Of-
fice of Professional Responsibility, will
announce in the Internal Revenue Bulletin
their names, their city and state, their pro-
fessional designation, the effective date
of disciplinary action, and the period of
suspension. This announcement will ap-
pear in the weekly Bulletin at the earliest
practicable date after such action and will
continue to appear in the weekly Bulletins
for five successive weeks.
Reinstatement To Practice Before the Internal Revenue
Service
Under Title 31, Code of Federal Reg-
ulations, Part 10, The Director, Office of
Professional Responsibility, may entertain
a petition for reinstatement for any attor-
ney, certified public accountant, enrolled
agent, or enrolled actuary censured, sus-
pended, or disbarred, from practice before
the Internal Revenue Service.
The following individuals’ eligibility to
practice before the Internal Revenue Ser-
vice has been restored:
NameAddressDesignationDate of Reinstatement
Dotson, Lewis S.Mattoon, ILAttorneyApril 8, 2007
Adams, Jr., Joseph T.Philadelphia, PAEnrolled AgentJuly 30, 2007
Cramer, George C.Chicago, ILCPAJuly 30, 2007
Garlikov, Mark B.Dayton, OHAttorneyJuly 30, 2007
Grant, Elaine C.Woodway, WAEnrolled AgentJuly 30, 2007
Rubesh, LelandGillette, WYCPAJuly 30, 2007
Schawe, Rudolph B.Brenham, TXEnrolled AgentJuly 30, 2007
Sobel, Herbert L.Elkins Park, PACPAJuly 30, 2007
Welch, Frank G.Stamford, CTCPAJuly 30, 2007
Ferguson, Charles E.Naples, FLCPAJuly 31, 2007
Lim, Edgar E.St. Louis, MOAttorneyJuly 31, 2007
Sneathen, Lowell D.Orange, CACPAAugust 30, 2007
Smith, David B.Kettering, OHEnrolled AgentSeptember 9, 2007
Young, Ronald B.Fairfield, CTCPASeptember 9, 2007
Sheiman, Alan P.Sherman Oaks, CAEnrolled AgentSeptember 14, 2007
DiSiena, Frank E.Somers, NYCPASeptember 19, 2007
November 19, 200710392007–47 I.R.B.

NameAddressDesignationDate of Reinstatement
Leggio, Joseph J.Katonah, NYCPASeptember 24, 2007
Consent Suspensions From Practice Before the Internal
Revenue Service
Under Title 31, Code of Federal Regu-
lations, Part 10, an attorney, certified pub-
lic accountant, enrolled agent, or enrolled
actuary, in order to avoid the institution
or conclusion of a proceeding for his or
her disbarment or suspension from prac-
tice before the Internal Revenue Service,
may offer his or her consent to suspension
from such practice. The Director, Office
of Professional Responsibility, in his dis-
cretion, may suspend an attorney, certified
public accountant, enrolled agent, or en-
rolled actuary in accordance with the con-
sent offered.
The following individuals have been
placed under consent suspension from
practice before the Internal Revenue Ser-
vice:
NameAddressDesignationDate of Suspension
Hunter, RichardMoweaqua, ILEnrolled AgentIndefinite
from
July 16, 2007
Sheehy, William J.Northville, MIAttorneyIndefinite
from
July 16, 2007
Szwyd, Edward R.Housatonic, MACPAIndefinite
from
July 16, 2007
Lettieri, Louis E.Red Bank, NJCPAIndefinite
from
August 1, 2007
Stein, Jerold A.Alpharetta, GACPAIndefinite
from
August 1, 2007
Tutino, Philip R.East Hampton, NYCPAIndefinite
from
August 1, 2007
Dorr, Mark A.Gillette, WYCPAIndefinite
from
August 7, 2007
Nelson, Carole S.Riverside, CAEnrolled AgentIndefinite
from
August 8, 2007
Siegel, HerbertNew City, NYCPAIndefinite
from
August 10, 2007
Taylor, Linda W.Las Vegas, NVCPAIndefinite
from
August 15, 2007
Finkelstein, MeyerStaten Island, NYCPAIndefinite
from
August 15, 2007
2007–47 I.R.B.1040November 19, 2007

NameAddressDesignationDate of Suspension
Schenck, Thomas M.Tampa, FLCPAIndefinite
from
August 20, 2007
Shah, Sudhir P.Richardson, TXCPAIndefinite
from
August 20, 2007
Bender, Elmer P.Missoula, MTCPAIndefinite
from
August 31, 2007
Tselepis, JohnJarrettsville, MDCPAIndefinite
from
September 5, 2007
Perez, Ricardo L.Cedar Lake, INCPAIndefinite
from
September 10, 2007
Golden, Roberta A.Framington, MAAttorneyIndefinite
from
September 13, 2007
Ward, Thomas R.St. Louis Park, MNAttorneyIndefinite
from
September 13, 2007
Expedited Suspensions From Practice Before the Internal
Revenue Service
Under Title 31, Code of Federal Regu-
lations, Part 10, the Director, Office of Pro-
fessional Responsibility, is authorized to
immediately suspend from practice before
the Internal RevenueService any practi-
tioner who, within five years from the date
the expedited proceeding is instituted (1)
has had a license to practice as an attor-
ney, certified public accountant, or actuary
suspended or revoked for cause or (2) has
been convicted of certain crimes.
The following individuals have been
placed under suspension from practice be-
fore the Internal Revenue Service by virtue
of the expedited proceeding provisions:
NameAddressDesignationDate of Suspension
Murphy, John F.Wellsboro, PAAttorneyIndefinite
from
June 28, 2007
Aakre, Steven K.Hawley, MNAttorneyIndefinite
from
July 11, 2007
Brogan, Jane K.York, NEAttorneyIndefinite
from
July 11, 2007
Clark, Clifford A.Raleigh, NCCPAIndefinite
from
July 11, 2007
November 19, 200710412007–47 I.R.B.

NameAddressDesignationDate of Suspension
Downing, Jr., Eugene W.Arlington, MAAttorneyIndefinite
from
July 11, 2007
Kahn, Arthur M.Woodstock, NYAttorneyIndefinite
from
July 11, 2007
Kossmeyer, Carl F.Town andCountry, MOCPAIndefinite
from
July 11, 2007
Lee, John C.Charlotte,NCAttorneyIndefinite
from
July 11, 2007
McAvoy, Donald L.Windermere, FLCPAIndefinite
from
July 11, 2007
McCabe, Edwin A.Gloucester, MAAttorneyIndefinite
from
July 11, 2007
O’Donnell, Judith R.Westborough, MAAttorneyIndefinite
from
July 11, 2007
Taylor, John G.Lincoln, NEAttorneyIndefinite
from
July 11, 2007
Turner, D. ScottMooresville, NCAttorneyIndefinite
from
July 11, 2007
Csaszar, James J.Columbus, OHCPAIndefinite
from
July 13, 2007
Fischer, Mark W.Boulder, COAttorneyIndefinite
from
July 16, 2007
Behunin, Michael N.Sandy, UTAttorneyIndefinite
from
August 8, 2007
Carpenter, Jr., Darwin R.Melbourne, FLCPAIndefinite
from
August 23, 2007
Gresham, James L.Broken Arrow, OKCPAIndefinite
from
August 23, 2007
Krezminski, Allen D.Milwaukee, WIAttorneyIndefinite
from
August 23, 2007
2007–47 I.R.B.1042November 19, 2007

NameAddressDesignationDate of Suspension
Neary, Hugh M.Ottumwa, IAAttorneyIndefinite
from
August 23, 2007
Weiss, Randy A.Potomac, MDAttorneyIndefinite
from
August 23, 2007
Whiddon, Edward L.Houston, TXCPAIndefinite
from
August 23, 2007
Hazen, Robert D.Lindon, UTCPAIndefinite
from
August 29, 2007
Schafer, III, Harry J.Edmond, OKCPAIndefinite
from
September 6, 2007
Pullin, Wendy F.San Antonio, TXCPAIndefinite
from
September 24, 2007
Suspensions From Practice Before the Internal Revenue
Service After Notice and an Opportunity for a Proceeding
Under Title 31, Code of Federal Reg-
ulations, Part 10, after notice and an op-
portunity for a proceeding before an ad-
ministrative law judge, the following indi-
viduals have been placed under suspension
from practice before the Internal Revenue
Service:
NameAddressDesignationEffective Date
Newton, Douglas M.Fernandina Beach, FLCPAIndefinite
from
June 4, 2007
Snell, Barry A.Santa Monica, CACPAIndefinite
from
June 6, 2007
Khoury, Naif S.Fort Smith, ARAttorneyIndefinite
from
June 14, 2007
Bukovac, JaneAlexandria, VAEnrolled AgentIndefinite
from
June 29, 2007
Kreke, David J.Bartelso, ILEnrolled AgentIndefinite
from
July 12, 2007
Dunkley, John D.San Antonio, TXEnrolled AgentIndefinite
from
July 27, 2007
November 19, 200710432007–47 I.R.B.

Disbarments From Practice Before the Internal Revenue
Service After Notice and an Opportunity for a Proceeding
Under Title 31, Code of Federal Regu-
lations, Part 10, after notice and an oppor-
tunity for a proceeding before an adminis-
trative law judge, the following individu-
als have been disbarred from practice be-
fore the Internal Revenue Service:
NameAddressDesignationEffective Date
Ruocchio, RobertHavertown, PACPAJune 11, 2007
Turner, John S.Paradise, CAEnrolled AgentJune 15, 2007
Johnson, Ted R.Frankfort, INAttorneyJuly 30, 2007
Ayers, Dani D.Kelseyville, CAEnrolled AgentAugust 6, 2007
Foundations Status of Certain
Organizations
Announcement 2007–108
The following organizations have failed
to establish or have been unable to main-
tain their status as public charities or as op-
erating foundations. Accordingly, grantors
and contributors may not, after this date,
rely on previous rulings or designations
in the Cumulative List of Organizations
(Publication 78), or on the presumption
arising from the filing of notices under sec-
tion 508(b) of the Code. This listing does
notindicate that the organizations have lost
their status as organizations described in
section 501(c)(3), eligible to receive de-
ductible contributions.
Former Public Charities.The follow-
ing organizations (which have been treated
as organizations thatare not private foun-
dations described in section 509(a) of the
Code) are now classified as private foun-
dations:
A Plus Care Development, Inc.,
San Bernardino, CA
ABC Ministry & Counseling Center, Inc.,
Brooklyn, NY
Advantage Rutherford Foundation,
Rutherfordton, NC
AFRI — Assistance for Refugees, Inc.,
Brooklyn, NY
Angels of Mercy Aviation Corp., Inc.,
Warrensburg, MO
Babblingbrook Family Learning Center,
Inc., East Boston, MA
Bayside Lions Service, Inc., Bacliff, TX
Big Picture Social Marketing,
Overbrook, KS
Big P.L.A.Y. (Planning, Life, Athletic,
Youth) League, Alta Loma, CA
Brothers of One Kind Child
Development and Learning Center,
Moreno Valley, CA
CAFMA, Inc., St. Albans, NY
Caring and Sharing for the Homeless,
Inc., Ellicott City, MD
Case Management Resources, Inc.,
Ridgway, PA
Center for Adaptive Policy in Ecosystems,
Mukilteo, WA
Concerts by the Sea, Swampscott, MA
Crosswoods Entertainment Incorporated,
Santa Monica, CA
Daybreakers Foundation, Branson, MO
Dimension Family Development,
Stafford, VA
Discover America Foundation,
Richmond, CA
Dormay Learning Institute, Incorporated,
Miami, FL
Dunleith Railroad Historical Society,
East Dubuque, IL
Eastside Extreme, Bothell, WA
Family Institute, Inc., Lexington, KY
Foundation for Learning Development,
Manhattan Beach, CA
Free Energy, South Lake Tahoe, CA
Friends of City University, Inc.,
Washington, DC
Global Foundation for Education
Development, Inc., Arlington, VA
Good Samaritan Corporation,
Burlington, NJ
Great Commission International
Ministries, Cullman, AL
Greenlife Enrichment, Inc., Pasadena, CA
Hearts Senior Citizens, Denver, CO
Historic Herbert House Events Facility,
Vallejo, CA
Hollywood Community Corporation, Inc.,
Fayette, MS
Homeplanner Institute, Houston, TX
Hope for the Hurting Ministries, Inc.,
Mesa, AZ
Indiana Public HealthInstitute, Inc.,
Indianapolis, IN
Individuals With Disabilities
Enabling Advocacy Link-IDEAL,
Bedminister, NJ
International Brotherhood in Recovery,
Sunrise, FL
International Center for Ethics
and Workforce Readiness,
Panama City Beach, FL
James Thompson Community
Development, Inc., Pensacola, FL
Just Alternatives, Brooklin, MA
Juventud Encantador, Hillsborough, CA
Kendrick Foundation, Inc.,
Mooresville, IN
Kims Extended Learning Center, Inc.,
Memphis, TN
Kosas, New Orleans, LA
KWJWD Ministries, Moreno Valley, CA
Life Care Ministries, Inc., Fort Pierce, FL
Lupus Clinical Trials Consortium,
Princeton, NJ
Malcolm X— Ella L. Little Collins
Family Foundation, Inc., Boston, MA
Markee Pet Refuge, Salem, OR
MB Comprehensive Social Services,
Compton, CA
Me Too Youth Foundation, Oakland, CA
Michael Jefferson Outreach Ministries,
Starkville, MS
Militis Christi, Inc., Austin, TX
Ministries of the Well, Albuquerque, NM
2007–47 I.R.B.1044November 19, 2007

Mount Olive Community Development
Corporation, Riverside, CA
Multgenerational Outreach Center, Inc.,
Missouri City, TX
MVP Outreach, Inc., Greenville, SC
National Council on Paint Disposition,
Inc., East Brunswick, NJ
National Organization of Pacific Islanders
in America, Waldorf, MD
No-Charge Cards, Nassau, NY
North American Foundation for Keele
University, Inc., New York, NY
North Carolina Cotton Foundation, Inc.,
Nashville, NC
Olive Branch Animal Rescue & Refuge,
Inc., Sistersville, WV
Omni Educational & Cultural Foundation,
St. Charles, MO
One Village, Inc., Lilburn, GA
Paragon Payee Services, Inc.,
Vancouver, WA
Pardada Pardadi Educational Society,
Inc., Fairfax, VA
Payton Memorial Education Foundation,
Inc., Hialeah, FL
PEAK Institute, Inc., Adrian, MI
Pentacle Educational, Inc., Hazel Crest, IL
Premier Youth Opportunity Center,
West Covina, CA
Progressive Development Corporation,
Gloucester, MA
Project Outreach — Early Breast Care
Education Screening & Advocacy, Inc.,
Oklahoma City, OK
Rainbow Wellness Center, Galloway, NJ
Red Hill Community Unit 10 Academic
Foundation, Bridgeport, IL
Restoring Hope, Inc., New Orleans, LA
Richard A. Coz SJ Foundation, Ltd.,
Redwood City, CA
Rohnert Park Boards and Blades
Corporation, Rohnert Park, CA
Rosa Parks School Collaborative,
Berkley, CA
Scott Anderson Ministries, Inc.,
Kalamazoo, MI
Shalom Oasis Ministries, Inc.,
Raleigh, NC
Societa Dante Alighier, Inc.,
Isle of Palms, SC
Spelling Bee Competition, Inc.,
Chicago, IL
Ssanyu Youth Aid International,
Farmington Hills, MI
Tedrow Home Educators Network,
Wauseon, OH
They Are Helping People, New Caney, TX
Towpath Lodge Association, Inc.,
Brockport, NY
Universal Haitian Development & Relief
Fund, Inc., Bridgeport, GA
Vision and Leadership Community
Foundation, Frisco, TX
Vision Communities, Inc.,
Indianapolis, IN
Water Walker Ministries Incorporated,
Fayetteville, GA
Wes Becker Public School Survival Fund,
Inc., Eugene, OR
We Will Stand, Burbonnais, IL
Work-Scholarship Connection, Inc.,
Oxford, NC
Zoe Music Ministries, Inc.,
Coral Springs, FL
If an organization listed above submits
information that warrants the renewal of
its classification as a public charity or as
a private operating foundation, the Inter-
nal Revenue Service will issue a ruling or
determination letter with the revised clas-
sification as to foundation status. Grantors
and contributors may thereafter rely upon
such ruling or determination letter as pro-
vided in section 1.509(a)–7 of the Income
Tax Regulations. It is not the practice of
the Service to announce such revised clas-
sification of foundation status in the Inter-
nal Revenue Bulletin.
Consolidated Returns;
Intercompany Obligations;
Correction
Announcement 2007–109
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service
(IRS), Treasury.
ACTION: Correction to notice of pro-
posed rulemaking and withdrawal of pro-
posed regulations.
SUMMARY: This document contains cor-
rections to a notice of proposed rulemak-
ing (REG–107592–00, 2007–44 I.R.B.
908) and withdrawal of proposed regula-
tions (REG–105964–98, 2007–44 I.R.B.
908) that were published in theFed-
eral Registeron Friday, September 28,
2007 (72 FR 55139) providing guidance
regarding the treatment of transactions
involving obligations between members
of a consolidated group and the treatment
of transactions involving the provision of
insurance between members of a consol-
idated group. The regulations will affect
corporations filing consolidated returns.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT: Frances L. Kelly, (202)
622–7770 (not a toll-free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The correction notice that is the subject
of this document is under section 1502 of
the Internal Revenue Code.
Need for Correction
As published, the notice of pro-
posed rulemaking (REG–107592–00)
and withdrawal of proposed regulations
(REG–105964–98) contain errors that
may prove to be misleading and are in
need of clarification.
Correction of Publication
Accordingly, the publication of pro-
posed rulemaking (REG–107592–00)
and withdrawal of proposed regulations
(REG–105964–98), which were the sub-
jects of FR Doc. E7–19134, is corrected
as follows:
1. On page 55142, column 3, in the
preamble, under the paragraph heading “E.
Material Tax Benefit Rule”, eleventh line
of the third paragraph, the language “a ma-
terial tax benefit that would not” is cor-
rected to read “a material Federal tax ben-
efit that would not”.
2. On page 55143, column 1, in the
preamble, under the paragraph heading “F.
Off-Market Issuance Rule”, eleventh line
of the second paragraph of the column, the
language “tax benefit. In such cases, the”
is corrected to read “Federal tax benefit. In
such cases, the”.
3. On page 55143, column 1, in the pre-
amble, under the paragraph heading “G.
Outbound Transactions”, eighth line of the
first paragraph, the language “obligation
that became intercompany” is corrected to
read “obligation that became an intercom-
pany”.
4. On page 55144, column 1, in the
preamble, under the paragraph heading “I.
November 19, 200710452007–47 I.R.B.

Other Request for Comments”, eleventh
line of the first full paragraph of the col-
umn, the language “and basis (such as the
issuance of note” is corrected to read “and
basis (such as the issuance of a note”.
§ 1.1502–13 [Corrected]
5.On page 55146, column 2,
§ 1.1502–13(g)(2)(v), second line of the
paragraph, the language “of a material
net reduction in income or” is corrected
to read “of, for Federal tax purposes, a
material net reduction in income or”.
6.On page 55146, column 3,
§ 1.1502–13(g)(3)(i)(B), last line of the
paragraph, the language “or (6)ofthis
section apply.” is corrected to read “or (6)
of this section apply. The exceptions are
as follows.”.
7.On page 55147, column 3,
§ 1.1502–13(g)(4)(iii), last line of the
paragraph, the language “market interest
rates.” is corrected to read “market interest
rates).”.
8.On page 55149, column 2,
§ 1.1502–13(g)(7)(ii)Example 2.(vi),
sixth line of the paragraph, the language
“as selling all of its assets to X, including
the” is corrected to read “as selling all of
its assets to new S, including the”.
9.On page 55149, column 2,
§ 1.1502–13(g)(7)(ii)Example 2.(vi),
seventeenth line of the paragraph, the lan-
guage “to X for $70, the amount realized
with” is corrected to read “to new S for
$70, the amount realized with”.
10. On page 55150, column 3,
§ 1.1502–13(g)(7)(ii)Example 6.(i), sixth
line of the paragraph, the language “repay-
ment of $100 at the end of year 5. The”
is corrected to read “repayment of $100 at
the end of year 20. The”.
11. On page 55151, column 1,
§ 1.1502–13(g)(7)(ii)Example 8.(i), third
line of the paragraph, the language “from
a separate return limitation year (SRLY).”
is corrected to read “from a separate return
limitation year that is subject to limitation
under § 1.1502–21(c) (a SRLY loss).”.
12. On page 55151, column 2,
§ 1.1502–13(g)(7)(ii)Example 9.(i), third
through fourth lines of the paragraph, the
language “material loss from a separate
return limitation year (SRLY). T’s sole
shareholder,” is corrected to read “mate-
rial SRLY loss. T’s sole shareholder,”.
13. On page 55151, column 3,
§ 1.1502–13(g)(7)(ii)Example 10.(iii),
ninth line of the paragraph, the language
“principal amount, and a fair market value
of” is corrected to read “principal amount,
and fair market value of”.
LaNita Van Dyke,
Chief, Publications and
Regulations Branch,
Legal Processing Division,
Associate Chief Counsel
(Procedure and Administration).
(Filed by the Office of the Federal Register on October 30,
2007, 8:45 a.m., and published in the issue of the Federal
Register for October 31, 2007, 72 F.R. 61582)
2007–47 I.R.B.1046November 19, 2007

Definition of Terms
Revenue rulings and revenue procedures
(hereinafter referred to as “rulings”) that
have an effect on previous rulings use the
following defined terms to describe the ef-
fect:
Amplifieddescribes a situation where
no change is being made in a prior pub-
lished position, but the prior position is be-
ingextendedtoapplytoavariationofthe
fact situation set forth therein. Thus, if
an earlier ruling held that a principle ap-
plied to A, and the new ruling holds that the
same principle also applies to B, the earlier
ruling is amplified. (Compare withmodi-
fied,below).
Clarifiedis used in those instances
where the language in a prior ruling is be-
ing made clear because the language has
caused, or may cause, some confusion.
It is not used where a position in a prior
ruling is being changed.
Distinguisheddescribes a situation
where a ruling mentions a previously pub-
lished ruling and points out an essential
difference between them.
Modifiedis used where the substance
of a previously published position is being
changed. Thus, if a prior ruling held that a
principle applied to A but not to B, and the
new ruling holds that it applies to both A
and B, the prior ruling is modified because
it corrects a published position. (Compare
withamplifiedandclarified, above).
Obsoleteddescribes a previously pub-
lished ruling that is not considered deter-
minative with respect to future transac-
tions. This term is most commonly used in
a ruling that lists previously published rul-
ings that are obsoleted because of changes
in laws or regulations. A ruling may also
be obsoleted because the substance has
been included in regulations subsequently
adopted.
Revokeddescribes situations where the
position in the previously published ruling
is not correct and the correct position is
beingstatedinanewruling.
Supersededdescribes a situation where
the new ruling does nothing more than re-
state the substance and situation of a previ-
ously published ruling (or rulings). Thus,
the term is used to republish under the
1986 Code and regulations the same po-
sition published under the 1939 Code and
regulations. The term is also used when
it is desired to republish in a single rul-
ing a series of situations, names, etc., that
were previously published over a period of
time in separate rulings. If the new rul-
ing does more than restate the substance
of a prior ruling, a combination of terms
is used. For example,modifiedandsu-
persededdescribes a situation where the
substance of a previously published ruling
is being changed in part and is continued
without change in part and it is desired to
restate the valid portion of the previously
published ruling in a new ruling that is self
contained. In this case, the previously pub-
lished ruling is first modified and then, as
modified, is superseded.
Supplementedis used in situations in
which a list, such as a list of the names of
countries, is published in a ruling and that
list is expanded by adding further names in
subsequent rulings. After the original rul-
ing has been supplemented several times, a
new ruling may be published that includes
the list in the original ruling and the ad-
ditions, and supersedes all prior rulings in
the series.
Suspendedis used in rare situations
to show that the previous published rul-
ings will not be applied pending some
future action such as the issuance of new
or amended regulations, the outcome of
cases in litigation, or the outcome of a
Service study.
Abbreviations
The fol
lowing abbreviations in current use
and for
merly used will appear in material
publis
hedintheBulletin.
A—Individual.
Acq.—A
cquiescence.
B—Individual.
BE—Beneficiary.
BK—Bank
.
B.T.A.—Board of Tax Appeals.
C—Individual.
C.B.—Cu
mulative Bulletin.
CFR—Code of Federal Regulations.
CI—City.
COOP—Coo
perative.
Ct.D.—Court Decision.
CY—County.
D—Decede
nt.
DC—Dummy Corporation.
DE—Donee.
Del. Order
—Delegation Order.
DISC—Domestic International Sales Corporation.
DR—Donor.
E—Estate.
EE—Employee.
E.O.—Executive Order.
ER—Emp
loyer.
ERISA—Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
EX—Executor.
F—Fiduc
iary.
FC—Foreign Country.
FICA—Federal Insurance Contributions Act.
FISC—Fo
reign International Sales Company.
FPH—Foreign Personal Holding Company.
F.R.—Federal Register.
FUTA—Fed
eral Unemployment Tax Act.
FX—Foreign corporation.
G.C.M.—Chief Counsel’s Memorandum.
GE—Grante
e.
GP—General Partner.
GR—Grantor.
IC—Insura
nce Company.
I.R.B.—Internal Revenue Bulletin.
LE—Lessee.
LP—Limited
Partner.
LR—Lessor.
M—Minor.
Nonacq.—No
nacquiescence.
O—Organization.
P—Parent Corporation.
PHC—Persona
l Holding Company.
PO—Possession of the U.S.
PR—Partner.
PRS—Pa
rtnership.
PTE—Prohibited Transaction Exemption.
Pub. L.—Public Law.
REIT—Re
al Estate Investment Trust.
Rev. Proc.—Revenue Procedure.
Rev. Rul.—Revenue Ruling.
S—Subsi
diary.
S.P.R.—Statement of Procedural Rules.
Stat.—Statutes at Large.
T—Target
Corporation.
T.C.—Tax Court.
T.D.—Treasury Decision.
TFE—Trans
feree.
TFR—Transferor.
T.I.R.—Technical Information Release.
TP—Taxpay
er.
TR—Trust.
TT—Trustee.
U.S.C.—Uni
ted States Code.
X—Corporation.
Y—Corporation.
Z—Corporat
ion.
November 19, 2007i2007–47 I.R.B.

Numerical Finding List
1
Bulletins 2007–27 through 2007–47
Announcements:
2007-61, 2007-28 I.R.B.84
2007-62, 2007-29 I.R.B.115
2007-63, 2007-30 I.R.B.236
2007-64, 2007-29 I.R.B.125
2007-65, 2007-30 I.R.B.236
2007-66, 2007-31 I.R.B.296
2007-67, 2007-32 I.R.B.345
2007-68, 2007-32 I.R.B.348
2007-69, 2007-33 I.R.B.371
2007-70, 2007-33 I.R.B.371
2007-71, 2007-33 I.R.B.372
2007-72, 2007-33 I.R.B.373
2007-73, 2007-34 I.R.B.435
2007-74, 2007-35 I.R.B.483
2007-75, 2007-36 I.R.B.540
2007-76, 2007-36 I.R.B.560
2007-77, 2007-38 I.R.B.662
2007-78, 2007-38 I.R.B.663
2007-79, 2007-40 I.R.B.749
2007-80, 2007-38 I.R.B.667
2007-81, 2007-38 I.R.B.667
2007-82, 2007-40 I.R.B.749
2007-83, 2007-40 I.R.B.752
2007-84, 2007-41 I.R.B.797
2007-85, 2007-39 I.R.B.719
2007-86, 2007-39 I.R.B.719
2007-87, 2007-40 I.R.B.753
2007-88, 2007-42 I.R.B.801
2007-89, 2007-41 I.R.B.798
2007-90, 2007-42 I.R.B.856
2007-91, 2007-42 I.R.B.857
2007-92, 2007-42 I.R.B.857
2007-93, 2007-42 I.R.B.858
2007-94, 2007-42 I.R.B.858
2007-95, 2007-43 I.R.B.894
2007-96, 2007-42 I.R.B.859
2007-97, 2007-43 I.R.B.895
2007-98, 2007-43 I.R.B.896
2007-99, 2007-43 I.R.B.896
2007-100, 2007-44 I.R.B.922
2007-101, 2007-43 I.R.B.898
2007-102, 2007-44 I.R.B.922
2007-103, 2007-44 I.R.B.923
2007-104, 2007-44 I.R.B.924
2007-105, 2007-45 I.R.B.984
2007-106, 2007-46 I.R.B.1021
2007-107, 2007-46 I.R.B.989
2007-108, 2007-47 I.R.B.1044
2007-109, 2007-47 I.R.B.1045
Court Decisions:
2083, 2007-46 I.R.B.986
2084, 2007-47 I.R.B.1032
Notices:
2007-54, 2007-27 I.R.B.12
2007-55, 2007-27 I.R.B.13
2007-56, 2007-27 I.R.B.15
2007-57, 2007-29 I.R.B.87
2007-58, 2007-29 I.R.B.88
2007-59, 2007-30 I.R.B.135
2007-60, 2007-35 I.R.B.466
2007-61, 2007-30 I.R.B.140
2007-62, 2007-32 I.R.B.331
2007-63, 2007-33 I.R.B.353
2007-64, 2007-34 I.R.B.385
2007-65, 2007-34 I.R.B.386
2007-66, 2007-34 I.R.B.387
2007-67, 2007-35 I.R.B.467
2007-68, 2007-35 I.R.B.468
2007-69, 2007-35 I.R.B.468
2007-70, 2007-40 I.R.B.735
2007-71, 2007-35 I.R.B.472
2007-72, 2007-36 I.R.B.544
2007-73, 2007-36 I.R.B.545
2007-74, 2007-37 I.R.B.585
2007-75, 2007-39 I.R.B.679
2007-76, 2007-40 I.R.B.735
2007-77, 2007-40 I.R.B.735
2007-78, 2007-41 I.R.B.780
2007-79, 2007-42 I.R.B.809
2007-80, 2007-43 I.R.B.867
2007-81, 2007-44 I.R.B.899
2007-82, 2007-44 I.R.B.904
2007-83, 2007-45 I.R.B.960
2007-84, 2007-45 I.R.B.963
2007-85, 2007-45 I.R.B.965
2007-86, 2007-46 I.R.B.990
2007-87, 2007-45 I.R.B.966
2007-88, 2007-46 I.R.B.993
2007-89, 2007-46 I.R.B.998
2007-90, 2007-46 I.R.B.1003
2007-92, 2007-47 I.R.B.1036
Proposed Regulations:
REG-107592-00, 2007-44 I.R.B.908
REG-121475-03, 2007-35 I.R.B.474
REG-128274-03, 2007-33 I.R.B.356
REG-114084-04, 2007-33 I.R.B.359
REG-149036-04, 2007-33 I.R.B.365
REG-149036-04, 2007-34 I.R.B.411
REG-101001-05, 2007-36 I.R.B.548
REG-119097-05, 2007-28 I.R.B.74
REG-128843-05, 2007-37 I.R.B.587
REG-142695-05, 2007-39 I.R.B.681
Proposed Regulations— Continued:
REG-143326-05, 2007-43 I.R.B.873
REG-143397-05, 2007-41 I.R.B.790
REG-147171-05, 2007-32 I.R.B.334
REG-148951-05, 2007-36 I.R.B.550
REG-163195-05, 2007-33 I.R.B.366
REG-118886-06, 2007-37 I.R.B.591
REG-128224-06, 2007-36 I.R.B.551
REG-138707-06, 2007-32 I.R.B.342
REG-139268-06, 2007-34 I.R.B.415
REG-140206-06, 2007-46 I.R.B.1006
REG-142039-06, 2007-34 I.R.B.415
REG-144540-06, 2007-31 I.R.B.296
REG-148393-06, 2007-39 I.R.B.714
REG-103842-07, 2007-28 I.R.B.79
REG-106143-07, 2007-43 I.R.B.881
REG-113891-07, 2007-42 I.R.B.821
REG-114125-07, 2007-46 I.R.B.1012
REG-116215-07, 2007-38 I.R.B.659
REG-118719-07, 2007-37 I.R.B.593
REG-129916-07, 2007-43 I.R.B.891
REG-134923-07, 2007-47 I.R.B.1037
REG-138637-07, 2007-45 I.R.B.977
Revenue Procedures:
2007-42, 2007-27 I.R.B.15
2007-43, 2007-27 I.R.B.26
2007-44, 2007-28 I.R.B.54
2007-45, 2007-29 I.R.B.89
2007-46, 2007-29 I.R.B.102
2007-47, 2007-29 I.R.B.108
2007-48, 2007-29 I.R.B.110
2007-49, 2007-30 I.R.B.141
2007-50, 2007-31 I.R.B.244
2007-51, 2007-30 I.R.B.143
2007-52, 2007-30 I.R.B.222
2007-53, 2007-30 I.R.B.233
2007-54, 2007-31 I.R.B.293
2007-55, 2007-33 I.R.B.354
2007-56, 2007-34 I.R.B.388
2007-57, 2007-36 I.R.B.547
2007-58, 2007-37 I.R.B.585
2007-59, 2007-40 I.R.B.745
2007-60, 2007-39 I.R.B.679
2007-61, 2007-40 I.R.B.747
2007-62, 2007-41 I.R.B.786
2007-63, 2007-42 I.R.B.809
2007-64, 2007-42 I.R.B.818
2007-65, 2007-45 I.R.B.967
2007-66, 2007-45 I.R.B.970
Revenue Rulings:
2007-42, 2007-28 I.R.B.44
2007-43, 2007-28 I.R.B.45
2007-44, 2007-28 I.R.B.47
2007-45, 2007-28 I.R.B.49
1
A cumulative list of all revenue rulings, revenueprocedures, Treasury decisions, etc., publishedin Internal Revenue Bulletins 2007–1 through 2007–26 is in Internal Revenue Bulletin
2007–26, dated June 25, 2007.
2007–47 I.R.B.iiNovember 19, 2007

Revenue Rulings— Continued:
2007-46, 2007-30 I.R.B.126
2007-47, 2007-30 I.R.B.127
2007-48, 2007-30 I.R.B.129
2007-49, 2007-31 I.R.B.237
2007-50, 2007-32 I.R.B.311
2007-51, 2007-37 I.R.B.573
2007-52, 2007-37 I.R.B.575
2007-53, 2007-37 I.R.B.577
2007-54, 2007-38 I.R.B.604
2007-55, 2007-38 I.R.B.604
2007-56, 2007-39 I.R.B.668
2007-57, 2007-36 I.R.B.531
2007-58, 2007-37 I.R.B.562
2007-59, 2007-37 I.R.B.582
2007-60, 2007-38 I.R.B.606
2007-61, 2007-42 I.R.B.799
2007-62, 2007-41 I.R.B.767
2007-63, 2007-41 I.R.B.778
2007-64, 2007-45 I.R.B.953
2007-65, 2007-45 I.R.B.949
2007-66, 2007-45 I.R.B.956
Social Security Contribution and Benefit
Base; Domestic Employee Coverage
Threshold:
2007-92, 2007-47 I.R.B.1036
Tax Conventions:
2007-75, 2007-36 I.R.B.540
2007-88, 2007-42 I.R.B.801
2007-107, 2007-46 I.R.B.989
Treasury Decisions:
9326, 2007-31 I.R.B.242
9327, 2007-28 I.R.B.50
9328, 2007-27 I.R.B.1
9329, 2007-32 I.R.B.312
9330, 2007-31 I.R.B.239
9331, 2007-32 I.R.B.298
9332, 2007-32 I.R.B.300
9333, 2007-33 I.R.B.350
9334, 2007-34 I.R.B.382
9335, 2007-34 I.R.B.380
9336, 2007-35 I.R.B.461
9337, 2007-35 I.R.B.455
9338, 2007-35 I.R.B.463
9339, 2007-35 I.R.B.437
9340, 2007-36 I.R.B.487
9341, 2007-35 I.R.B.449
9342, 2007-35 I.R.B.451
9343, 2007-36 I.R.B.533
9344, 2007-36 I.R.B.535
9345, 2007-36 I.R.B.523
9346, 2007-37 I.R.B.570
9347, 2007-38 I.R.B.624
9348, 2007-37 I.R.B.563
9349, 2007-39 I.R.B.668
9350, 2007-38 I.R.B.607
Treasury Decisions— Continued:
9351, 2007-38 I.R.B.616
9352, 2007-38 I.R.B.621
9353, 2007-40 I.R.B.721
9354, 2007-41 I.R.B.759
9355, 2007-37 I.R.B.577
9356, 2007-39 I.R.B.675
9357, 2007-41 I.R.B.773
9358, 2007-41 I.R.B.769
9359, 2007-45 I.R.B.931
9360, 2007-43 I.R.B.860
9361, 2007-47 I.R.B.1026
November 19, 2007iii2007–47 I.R.B.

Finding List of Current Actions on
Previously Published Items
1
Bulletins 2007–27 through 2007–47
Announcements:
84-26
Obsoleted by
T.D. 9336, 2007-35 I.R.B.461
84-37
Obsoleted by
T.D. 9336, 2007-35 I.R.B.461
Notices:
89-110
Modified by
REG-142695-05, 2007-39 I.R.B.681
99-6
Obsoleted as of January 1, 2009 by
T.D. 9356, 2007-39 I.R.B.675
2002-45
Modified by
REG-142695-05, 2007-39 I.R.B.681
2003-81
Modified and supplemented by
Notice 2007-71, 2007-35 I.R.B.472
2005-1
Modified by
Notice 2007-89, 2007-46 I.R.B.998
2006-1
Modified by
Notice 2007-70, 2007-40 I.R.B.735
2006-43
Modified by
T.D. 9332, 2007-32 I.R.B.300
2006-56
Clarified by
Notice 2007-74, 2007-37 I.R.B.585
2006-79
Section 3 modified and superseded by
Notice 2007-86, 2007-46 I.R.B.990
2006-89
Modified by
Notice 2007-67, 2007-35 I.R.B.467
2007-3
Modified by
Notice 2007-69, 2007-35 I.R.B.468
2007-26
Modified by
Notice 2007-56, 2007-27 I.R.B.15
2007-78
Modified by
Notice 2007-86, 2007-46 I.R.B.990
Proposed Regulations:
EE-16-79
Withdrawn by
REG-142695-05, 2007-39 I.R.B.681
EE-130-86
Withdrawn by
REG-142695-05, 2007-39 I.R.B.681
REG-243025-96
Withdrawn by
REG-142695-05, 2007-39 I.R.B.681
REG-105964-98
Withdrawn by
REG-107592-00, 2007-44 I.R.B.908
REG-117162-99
Withdrawn by
REG-142695-05, 2007-39 I.R.B.681
REG-157711-02
Corrected by
Ann. 2007-74, 2007-35 I.R.B.483
REG-119097-05
Hearing location change by
Ann. 2007-81, 2007-38 I.R.B.667
REG-142695-05
Hearing location change by
Ann. 2007-91, 2007-42 I.R.B.857
REG-148951-05
Corrected by
Ann. 2007-94, 2007-42 I.R.B.858
REG-109367-06
Hearing scheduled by
Ann. 2007-66, 2007-31 I.R.B.296
REG-128224-06
Hearing location change by
Ann. 2007-92, 2007-42 I.R.B.857
Corrected by
Ann. 2007-95, 2007-43 I.R.B.894
REG-138707-06
Corrected by
Ann. 2007-79, 2007-40 I.R.B.749
Cancellation of hearing by
Ann. 2007-101, 2007-43 I.R.B.898
REG-143601-06
Corrected by
Ann. 2007-71, 2007-33 I.R.B.372
REG-143797-06
Cancellation of hearing by
Ann. 2007-85, 2007-39 I.R.B.719
REG-148393-06
Corrected by
Ann. 2007-98, 2007-43 I.R.B.896
Proposed Regulations— Continued:
REG-103842-07
Corrected by
Ann. 2007-77, 2007-38 I.R.B.662
REG-116215-07
Corrected by
Ann. 2007-97, 2007-43 I.R.B.895
Revenue Procedures:
90-12
Modified by
Rev. Proc. 2007-66, 2007-45 I.R.B.970
90-27
Superseded by
Rev. Proc. 2007-52, 2007-30 I.R.B.222
95-28
Superseded by
Rev. Proc. 2007-54, 2007-31 I.R.B.293
97-14
Modified and superseded by
Rev. Proc. 2007-47, 2007-29 I.R.B.108
98-48
Modified by
T.D. 9353, 2007-40 I.R.B.721
2002-9
Modified and amplified by
Rev. Proc. 2007-48, 2007-29 I.R.B.110
Rev. Proc. 2007-53, 2007-30 I.R.B.233
2002-41
Modified by
Rev. Proc. 2007-66, 2007-45 I.R.B.970
2003-43
Supplemented by
Rev. Proc. 2007-62, 2007-41 I.R.B.786
2004-42
Superseded by
Notice 2007-59, 2007-30 I.R.B.135
2004-48
Supplemented by
Rev. Proc. 2007-62, 2007-41 I.R.B.786
2005-16
Modified by
Rev. Proc. 2007-44, 2007-28 I.R.B.54
2005-27
Superseded by
Rev. Proc. 2007-56, 2007-34 I.R.B.388
2005-66
Clarified, modified, and superseded by
Rev. Proc. 2007-44, 2007-28 I.R.B.54
2006-25
Superseded by
Rev. Proc. 2007-42, 2007-27 I.R.B.15
1
A cumulative list of current actions on previously published items in Internal Revenue Bulletins 2007–1 through 2007–26 is in Internal Revenue Bulletin 2007–26, dated June 25, 2007.
2007–47 I.R.B.ivNovember 19, 2007

Revenue Procedures— Continued:
2006-27
Modified by
Rev. Proc. 2007-49, 2007-30 I.R.B.141
2006-33
Superseded by
Rev. Proc. 2007-51, 2007-30 I.R.B.143
2006-41
Superseded by
Rev. Proc. 2007-63, 2007-42 I.R.B.809
2006-45
Modified and clarified by
Rev. Proc. 2007-64, 2007-42 I.R.B.818
2006-53
Modified by
Rev. Proc. 2007-60, 2007-39 I.R.B.679
2006-55
Superseded by
Rev. Proc. 2007-43, 2007-27 I.R.B.26
2007-4
Modified by
Notice 2007-69, 2007-35 I.R.B.468
2007-15
Superseded by
Rev. Proc. 2007-50, 2007-31 I.R.B.244
Revenue Rulings:
54-378
Clarified by
Rev. Rul. 2007-51, 2007-37 I.R.B.573
67-93
Obsoleted by
T.D. 9347, 2007-38 I.R.B.624
69-141
Modified by
REG-142695-05, 2007-39 I.R.B.681
74-299
Amplified by
Rev. Rul. 2007-48, 2007-30 I.R.B.129
75-425
Obsoleted by
Rev. Rul. 2007-60, 2007-38 I.R.B.606
76-278
Obsoleted by
T.D. 9354, 2007-41 I.R.B.759
76-288
Obsoleted by
T.D. 9354, 2007-41 I.R.B.759
76-450
Obsoleted by
T.D. 9347, 2007-38 I.R.B.624
Revenue Rulings— Continued:
78-257
Obsoleted by
T.D. 9347, 2007-38 I.R.B.624
78-369
Revoked by
Rev. Rul. 2007-53, 2007-37 I.R.B.577
89-96
Amplified by
Rev. Rul. 2007-47, 2007-30 I.R.B.127
92-17
Modified by
Rev. Rul. 2007-42, 2007-28 I.R.B.44
94-62
Supplemented by
Rev. Rul. 2007-58, 2007-37 I.R.B.562
2001-48
Modified by
T.D. 9332, 2007-32 I.R.B.300
2002-41
Modified by
REG-142695-05, 2007-39 I.R.B.681
2003-102
Modified by
REG-142695-05, 2007-39 I.R.B.681
2005-24
Modified by
REG-142695-05, 2007-39 I.R.B.681
2006-36
Modified by
REG-142695-05, 2007-39 I.R.B.681
2006-57
Modified by
Notice 2007-76, 2007-40 I.R.B.735
2007-54
Suspended by
Rev. Rul. 2007-61, 2007-42 I.R.B.799
2007-59
Amplified by
Notice 2007-74, 2007-37 I.R.B.585
Treasury Decisions:
8073
Removed by
T.D. 9349, 2007-39 I.R.B.668
9321
Corrected by
Ann. 2007-68, 2007-32 I.R.B.348
Ann. 2007-78, 2007-38 I.R.B.663
9330
Corrected by
Ann. 2007-80, 2007-38 I.R.B.667
Treasury Decisions— Continued:
9332
Corrected by
Ann. 2007-83, 2007-40 I.R.B.752
Ann. 2007-84, 2007-41 I.R.B.797
9334
Corrected by
Ann. 2007-93, 2007-42 I.R.B.858
9340
Corrected by
Ann. 2007-102, 2007-44 I.R.B.922
9353
Corrected by
Ann. 2007-103, 2007-44 I.R.B.923
November 19, 2007v2007–47 I.R.B.

2007–47 I.R.B.November 19, 2007

November 19, 20072007–47 I.R.B.

INTERNAL REVENUE BULLETIN
The Introduction at the beginning of this issue describes the purpose and content of this publication. The weekly Internal Revenue
Bulletin is sold on a yearly subscription basis by the Superintendent of Documents. Current subscribers are notified by the Superin-
tendent of Documents when their subscriptions must be renewed.
CUMULATIVE BULLETINS
The contents of this weekly Bulletin are consolidated semiannually into a permanent, indexed, Cumulative Bulletin. These are
sold on a single copy basis andare notincluded as part of the subscription to the Internal Revenue Bulletin. Subscribers to the weekly
Bulletin are notified when copies of the Cumulative Bulletin are available. Certain issues of Cumulative Bulletins are out of print
and are not available. Persons desiring available Cumulative Bulletins, which are listed on the reverse, may purchase them from the
Superintendent of Documents.
ACCESS THE INTERNAL REVENUE BULLETIN ON THE INTERNET
You may view the Internal Revenue Bulletin on the Internet at www.irs.gov. Under information for: select Businesses. Under
related topics, select More Topics. Then select Internal Revenue Bulletins.
INTERNAL REVENUE BULLETINS ON CD-ROM
Internal Revenue Bulletins are available annually as part ofPublication 1796 (Tax Products CD-ROM). The CD-ROM can be
purchased from National Technical Information Service (NTIS) on the Internet at www.irs.gov/cdorders (discount for online orders)
or by calling 1-877-233-6767. The first release is available in mid-December and the final release is available in late January.
HOW TO ORDER
Check the publications and/or subscription(s) desired on the reverse, complete the order blank, enclose the proper remittance,
detach entire page, and mail to the Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh PA, 15250–7954. Please allow two to
six weeks, plus mailing time, for delivery.
WE WELCOME COMMENTS ABOUT THE INTERNAL
REVENUE BUL
LETIN
If you have c
omments concerning the format or production of the Internal Revenue Bulletin or suggestions for improving it,
we would be p
leased to hear from you. You can e-mail us your suggestions or comments through the IRS Internet Home Page
(www.irs.g
ov) or write to the IRS Bulletin Unit, SE:W:CAR:MP:T:T:SP, Washington, DC 20224
Internal Revenue Service
W
ashington,DC20224
Official B
usiness
Penalty for
Private Use, $300