Part IV. Items — Internal Revenue Bulletin 2008-32

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking by Cross-Reference to Temporary Regulations and Notice of Public Hearing

Capital Costs Incurred to Comply With EPA Sulfur Regulations

REG–143453–05

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations and notice of public hearing.

SUMMARY: In this issue of the Bulletin, the IRS is issuing temporary regulations (T.D. 9404) under section 179B of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) relating to the deduction for qualified capital costs paid or incurred by a small business refiner to comply with the highway diesel fuel sulfur control requirements of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The temporary regulations implement changes to the law made by the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and the Tax Technical Corrections Act of 2007. The text of those temporary regulations also serves as the text of these proposed regulations. This document also provides notice of a public hearing on these proposed regulations.

DATES: Written or electronic comments must be received by September 25, 2008. Outlines of topics to be discussed at the public hearing scheduled for October 28, 2008, at 10 a.m. must be received by September 22, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG–143453–05), room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, PO Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG–143453–05), Courier’s Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW,

Washington, DC, or sent electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov (IRS REG–143453–05). The public hearing will be held in the IRS Auditorium, Internal Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Concerning the proposed regulations, Nicole Cimino, (202) 622–3110; concerning submissions of comments, the hearing, and/or to be placed on the building access list to attend the hearing, Oulwafunmilayo Taylor, (202) 622–7180 (not toll-free numbers).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Paperwork Reduction Act

The collection of information contained in this notice of proposed rulemaking has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)). Comments on the collection of information should be sent to the Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for the Department of the Treasury, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, with copies to the Internal Rev- enue Service, Attn: IRS Reports Clearance Officer, SE:W:CAR:MP:T:T:SP, Washington, DC 20224. Comments on the collection of information should be received by August 26, 2008. Comments are specifically requested concerning:

Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the IRS, including whether the information will have practical utility;

The accuracy of the estimated burden associated with the proposed collection of information;

How the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected may be enhanced;

How the burden of complying with the proposed collection of information may be minimized, including through the application of automated collection techniques

or other forms of information technology; and

Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of service to provide information.

The collection of information in this proposed regulation is in section 1.179B–1T(d) and section 1.179B–1T(e). This information collected under section 1.179B–1T(d) relates to the election under section 179B(a) by a small business refiner to deduct a portion of the qualified capital costs paid or incurred. The information collected under section 1.179B–1T(e) relates to the election under section 179B(e) by a cooperative small business refiner to allocate all or some of its section 179B(a) deduction to its cooperative owners and to notify those cooperative owners of the allocated amount. This information will be used by the IRS for examination purposes. The collection of information is required to obtain a benefit. The likely respondents are small business refiners.

Estimated total annual reporting burden: 50 hours.

The estimated annual burden per respondent varies from .75 to 1.5 hours, depending on individual circumstances, with an estimated average of 1 hour.

Estimated number of respondents: 50. Estimated frequency of responses: Annually.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget.

Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.

Background

Temporary regulations in this issue of the Bulletin amend 26 CFR part 1 by adding regulations under section 179B of the Code. The temporary regulations contain rules relating to the deduction provided under section 179B for qualified costs paid or incurred by a small business refiner to comply with the highway

2008–32 I.R.B. 310 August 11, 2008

lished elsewhere in this issue of the Bulletin].

Kevin M. Brown, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement.

(Filed by the Office of the Federal Register on June 26, 2008, 8:45 a.m., and published in the issue of the Federal Register for June 27, 2008, 73 F.R. 36475)

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking by Cross-Reference to Temporary Regulations and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Modifications to Subpart F Treatment of Aircraft and Vessel Leasing Income

REG–138355–07

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations and notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: In this issue of the Bulletin, the IRS is issuing temporary regulations (T.D. 9406) relating to the subpart F treatment of aircraft and vessel leasing income under sections 954 and 956 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) and the transfer of tangible property incorporated in aircraft and vessels that are used predominantly outside the United States under section 367 of the Code. The regulations reflect statutory changes made by section 415 of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (AJCA)). In general, the regulations will affect United States shareholders of controlled foreign corporations that derive income from the leasing of aircraft or vessels in foreign commerce and that transfer property subject to these leases to a foreign corporation. The text of those temporary regulations also serves as the text of these proposed regulations.

DATES: Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by October 1, 2008.

diesel fuel sulfur control requirements of the EPA. The text of those temporary regulations also serves as the text of these proposed regulations. The preamble to the temporary regulations explains the temporary regulations and these proposed regulations.

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 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. It is hereby certified that the collection of information in these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This certification is based upon the fact, as discussed earlier in this preamble, that the amount of time necessary to record and retain the required information is estimated to average one hour for those taxpayers electing to deduct qualified capital costs and electing to allocate all or some of that deduction to certain owners. Therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) is not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, this notice of proposed rulemaking has been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.

Comments and Public Hearing

Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any written comments (a signed original and eight (8) copies) or electronic comments that are submitted timely to the IRS. The IRS and the Treasury Department specifically request comments on the clarity of the proposed rules and how they may be made easier to understand. All comments will be available for public inspection and copying.

A public hearing has been scheduled for October 28, 2008, beginning at 10:00 a.m. in the IRS Auditorium, Internal Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC. Due to building security procedures, all visitors

must enter at the Constitution Avenue entrance. In addition, all visitors must present photo identification to enter the building. Because of access restrictions, visitors will not be admitted 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 FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) apply to the hearing. Persons who wish to present oral comments at the hearing must submit written or electronic comments by September 25, 2008 and an outline of the topics to be discussed and the time to be devoted to each topic (signed original and eight (8) copies) by September 22, 2008. A period of 10 minutes will be allotted to each person for making comments. 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 regulations is Nicole R. Cimino, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs and Special Industries). However, other personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in their development.

- - - -

Proposed Amendments to the Regulations

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is proposed to be 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 1.179B–1 is added to read as follows:

§1.179B–1 Deduction for capital costs incurred in complying with Environmental Protection Agency sulfur regulations .

[The text of this proposed §1.179B–1 is the same as the text of §1.179B–1T pub

August 11, 2008 311 2008–32 I.R.B.

Par. 2. In §1.367(a)–2 is added to read as follows:

§1.367(a)–2 Exception for transfers of property for use in the active conduct of a trade or business .

[The text of the proposed §1.367(a)–2 is the same as the text for §1.367(a)–2T(a) through (e)(2) published elsewhere in this issue of the Bulletin.]

Par. 3. In §1.367(a)–4 is added to read as follows:

§1.367(a)–4 Special rules applicable to specified transfers of property (temporary) .

[The text of the proposed §1.367(a)–4 is the same as the text for §1.367(a)–4T(a) through (i)(1) published elsewhere in this issue of the Bulletin.]

Par. 4. In §1.367(a)–5 is added to read as follows:

§1.367(a)–5 Property subject to section 367(a)(1) regardless of use in trade or business.

[The text of the proposed §1.367(a)–5 is the same as the text for §1.367(a)–5T(a) through (f)(3)(ii) published elsewhere in this issue of the Bulletin.]

Par. 5. Section 1.954–2(c)(2)(ii), (c)(2)(v) and (c)(3) Example 6 and (i) are revised to read as follows:

§1.954–2 Foreign personal holding company income .

- - - (c) * - * (2) - * (ii) [The text of the proposed amendment to §1.954–2(c)(2)(ii) is the same as the text of §1.954–2T(c)(2)(ii) published elsewhere in this issue of the Bulletin.]
- - - (v) [The text of the proposed amendment to §1.954–2(c)(2)(v) is the same as the text for §1.954–2T(c)(2)(v) published elsewhere in this issue of the Bulletin.]

(vi) [The text of the proposed amendment to §1.954–2(c)(2)(vi) is the same as the text for §1.954–2T(c)(2)(vi) published elsewhere in this issue of the Bulletin.]

(vii) [The text of the proposed amendment to §1.954–2(c)(2)(vii) is the same as

ADDRESSES: Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG–138355–07), Internal Revenue Service, PO Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand delivered between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG–138355–07), Courier’s Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, or sent electronically, via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov (IRS-REG–138355–07).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Concerning the proposed regulations under section 367, John H. Seibert, at (202) 622–3860; concerning the proposed regulations under section 954 or 956, Paul J. Carlino at (202) 622–3840; concerning submissions of comments or a public hearing, Richard Hurst, at (202) 622–7180 (not toll-free numbers).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background and Explanation of Provisions

Temporary regulations in this issue of the Bulletin provide guidance under section 367 of the Code, relating to the nonrecognition of gain on certain property transferred to a foreign corporation if the property is used by the foreign corporation in the active conduct of a trade or business outside of the United States. The regulations also provide guidance under section 954 relating to the determination of whether rents derived from leasing an aircraft or vessel in foreign commerce will be treated as derived in the active conduct of a trade or business under section 954(c)(2)(A), and section 956, relating to whether an aircraft or vessel used in the transportation of persons or property in foreign commerce is excluded from U.S. property. The text of the temporary regulations also serves as the text of these proposed regulations. The preamble to the temporary regulations explains the temporary regulations and these proposed regulations.

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 assessment is not required. It has also 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 the proposed regulation does not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. Ch. 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, this regulation has been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.

Comments and Requests for a Public Hearing

Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any written (a signed original and eight (8) copies) or electronic comments that are submitted timely to the IRS. The IRS and Treasury Department request comments 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 will be scheduled if requested in writing by any person that timely submits written comments. If a public hearing is scheduled, notice of the date, time, and place for the public hearing will be published in the Federal Register .

Drafting Information

The principal authors of these regulations are John H. Seibert and Paul J. Carlino, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (International). However, other personnel from the IRS and Treasury Department participated in their development.

- - - -

Proposed Amendments to the Regulations

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is proposed to be 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 * * *

2008–32 I.R.B. 312 August 11, 2008

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

This document contains proposed Income Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 1) under section 411(b) of the Code. ¹

Section 401(a)(7) provides that a trust is not a qualified trust under section 401 unless the plan of which such trust is a part satisfies the requirements of section 411 (relating to minimum vesting standards).

Section 411(a) requires a qualified plan to provide that an employee’s right to the normal retirement benefit is nonforfeitable upon attainment of normal retirement age and that an employee’s right to his or her accrued benefit is nonforfeitable upon completion of the specified number of years of service under one of the vesting schedules set forth in section 411(a)(2). Section 411(a)(7)(A)(i) defines a participant’s accrued benefit under a defined benefit plan as the employee’s accrued benefit determined under the plan, expressed in the form of an annual benefit commencing at normal retirement age, subject to an exception in section 411(c)(3) under which the accrued benefit is the actuarial equivalent of the annual benefit commencing at normal retirement age in the case of a plan that does not express the accrued benefit as an annual benefit commencing at normal retirement age.

Section 411(a) also requires that a defined benefit plan satisfy the requirements of section 411(b)(1). Section 411(b)(1) provides that a defined benefit plan must satisfy one of the three accrual rules of section 411(b)(1)(A), (B), and (C) with respect to benefits accruing under the plan. The three accrual rules are the 3 percent method of section 411(b)(1)(A), the 133 ¹ /3 percent rule of section 411(b)(1)(B), and the fractional rule of section 411(b)(1)(C).

Section 411(b)(1)(A) provides that a defined benefit plan satisfies the requirements of the 3 percent method if, under the plan, the accrued benefit payable upon the participant’s separation from service is not less than (A) 3 percent of the normal retirement benefit to which the participant would be entitled if the participant commenced participation at the earliest

the text for §1.954–2T(c)(2)(vii) published elsewhere in this issue of the Bulletin.]

(3) - * Example 6 . [The text of the proposed amendment to §1.954–2(c)(3) Example 6 is the same as the text for §1.954–2T(c)(3) Example 6 published elsewhere in this issue of the Bulletin.]

(i) [The text of the proposed amendment to §1.954–2(c)(3)(i) is the same as the text for §1.954–2T(c)(3)(i) published elsewhere in this issue of the Bulletin.]

Par. 6. Section 1.956–2(b)(1)(vi) and (e) are revised to read as follows:

§1.956–2 Definition of United States Property

- - - (b) - * (1) - * (vi) [The text of the proposed amendment to §1.956–2(b)(1)(vi) is the same as the text for §1.956–2T(b)(1)(vi) published elsewhere in this issue of the Bulletin.]
- - - (e) [The text of the proposed amendment to §1.956–2(e) is the same as the text of §1.956–2T(e) published elsewhere in this issue of the Bulletin].

Linda E. Stiff, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement.

(Filed by the Office of the Federal Register on July 2, 2008, 8:45 a.m., and published in the issue of the Federal Register for the July 3, 2008, 73 F.R. 38162)

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Public Hearing

Accrual Rules for Defined Benefit Plans

REG–100464–08

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing.

SUMMARY: This document contains proposed regulations providing guidance on the application of the accrual rule for defined benefit plans under section 411(b)(1)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) in cases where plan benefits are determined on the basis of the greatest of two or more separate formulas. These regulations would affect sponsors, administrators, participants, and beneficiaries of defined benefit plans. This document also provides a notice of a public hearing on these proposed regulations.

DATES: Written or electronic comments must be received by September 16, 2008. Outlines of topics to be discussed at the public hearing scheduled for October 15, 2008, at 10 a.m. must be received by September 24, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG–100464–08), room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, PO Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG–100464–08), Courier’s Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, or sent electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov (IRS REG–100464–08). The public hearing will be held in the IRS Auditorium, Internal Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Concerning the regulations, Lauson C. Green or Linda S. F. Marshall at (202) 622–6090; concerning submissions of comments, the hearing, and/or being placed on the building access list to attend the hearing, Richard A. Hurst at Richard.A.Hurst@irscounsel.treas.gov or at (202) 622–7180 (not toll-free numbers).

1 Section 204(b) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, Public Law 93–406 (88 Stat. 829), as amended (ERISA), sets forth rules that are parallel to those in section 411(b) of the Code. Under section 101 of Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1978 (43 FR 47713), the Secretary of the Treasury has interpretive jurisdiction over the subject matter addressed in these proposed regulations for purposes of ERISA, as well as the Code. Thus, these proposed Treasury regulations issued under section 411(b)(1)(B) of the Code would apply as well for purposes of section 204(b)(1)(B) of ERISA.

August 11, 2008 313 2008–32 I.R.B.

method, the 133 ¹ /3 percent rule, and the fractional rule. A defined benefit plan may provide that accrued benefits for participants are determined under more than one plan formula. Section 1.411(b)–1(a)(1) provides that, in such a case, the accrued benefits under all such formulas must be aggregated in order to determine whether or not the accrued benefits under the plan for participants satisfy one of these methods. Under §1.411(b)–1(a)(1), a plan may satisfy different methods with respect to different classifications of employees, or separately satisfy one method with respect to the accrued benefits for each such classification, provided that such classifications are not so structured as to evade the accrued benefit requirements of section 411(b) and §1.411(b)–1.

Section 1.411(b)–1(b)(2)(i) provides that a defined benefit plan satisfies the 133 ¹ /3 percent rule for a particular plan year if (A) under the plan the accrued benefit payable at the normal retirement age (determined under the plan) is equal to the normal retirement benefit (determined under the plan), and (B) the annual rate at which any individual who is or could be a participant can accrue the retirement benefits payable at normal retirement age under the plan for any later plan year cannot be more than 133 ¹ /3 percent of the annual rate at which the participant can accrue benefits for any plan year beginning on or after such particular plan year and before such later plan year.

Section 1.411(b)–1(b)(2)(ii)(A) through (D) sets forth a series of rules that correspond to the rules of section 411(b)(1)(B)(i) through (iv). For example, §1.411(b)–1(b)(2)(ii)(A) sets forth a special plan amendment rule for purposes of satisfying the 133 ¹ /3 percent rule that corresponds to section 411(b)(1)(B)(i). Under that rule, any amendment to a plan that is in effect for the current year is treated as if it were in effect for all other plan years.

Section 1.411(b)–1(b)(2)(ii)(E) provides that a plan is not treated as failing to satisfy the requirements of §1.411(b)–1(b)(2) for a plan year merely because no benefits under the plan accrue to a participant who continues service with the employer after the participant has

possible entry age under the plan and served continuously until the earlier of age 65 or the normal retirement age under the plan, multiplied by (B) the number of years (not in excess of 33 ¹ /3 years) of his or her participation in the plan. Section 411(b)(1)(A) provides that, in the case of a plan providing retirement benefits based on compensation during any period, the normal retirement benefit to which a participant would be entitled is determined as if the participant continued to earn annually the average rate of compensation during consecutive years of service, not in excess of 10, for which his or her compensation was highest. Section 411(b)(1)(A) also provides that Social Security benefits and all other relevant factors used to compute benefits are treated as remaining constant as of the current plan year for all years after the current year.

Section 411(b)(1)(B) provides that a defined benefit plan satisfies the requirements of the 133 ¹ /3 percent rule for a particular plan year if, under the plan, the accrued benefit payable at the normal retirement age is equal to the normal retirement benefit, and the annual rate at which any individual who is or could be a participant can accrue the retirement benefits payable at normal retirement age under the plan for any later plan year is not more than 133 ¹ /3 percent of the annual rate at which the individual can accrue benefits for any plan year beginning on or after such particular plan year and before such later plan year.

For purposes of applying the 133 ¹ /3 percent rule, section 411(b)(1)(B)(i) provides that any amendment to the plan which is in effect for the current year is treated as in effect for all other plan years. Section 411(b)(1)(B)(ii) provides that any change in an accrual rate which does not apply to any individual who is or could be a participant in the current plan year is disregarded. Section 411(b)(1)(B)(iii) provides that the fact that benefits under the plan may be payable to certain participants before normal retirement age is disregarded. Section 411(b)(1)(B)(iv) provides that Social Security benefits and all other relevant factors used to compute benefits are treated as remaining constant as of the current plan year for all years after the current year.

Section 411(b)(1)(C) provides that a defined benefit plan satisfies the fractional

rule if the accrued benefit to which any participant is entitled upon his or her separation from service is not less than a fraction of the annual benefit commencing at normal retirement age to which the participant would be entitled under the plan as in effect on the date of separation if the participant continued to earn annually until normal retirement age the same rate of compensation upon which the normal retirement benefit would be computed under the plan, determined as if the participant had attained normal retirement age on the date on which any such determination is made (but taking into account no more than 10 years of service immediately preceding separation from service). This fraction, which cannot exceed 1, has a numerator that is the total number of the participant’s years of participation in the plan (as of the date of separation from service) and a denominator that is the total number of years the participant would have participated in the plan if the participant separated from service at normal retirement age. Section 411(b)(1)(C) also provides that Social Security benefits and all other relevant factors used to compute benefits are treated as remaining constant as of the current plan year for all years after the current year.

Section 1.411(a)–7(a)(1) of the Income Tax Regulations provides that, for purposes of section 411 and the regulations under section 411, the accrued benefit of a participant under a defined benefit plan is either (A) the accrued benefit determined under the plan if the plan provides for an accrued benefit in the form of an annual benefit commencing at normal retirement age, or (B) an annual benefit commencing at normal retirement age which is the actuarial equivalent (determined under section 411(c)(3) and §1.411(c)–1)) of the accrued benefit under the plan if the plan does not provide for an accrued benefit in the form of an annual benefit commencing at normal retirement age.

Section 1.411(b)–1(a)(1) provides that a defined benefit plan is not a qualified plan unless the method provided by the plan for determining accrued benefits satisfies at least one of the alternative methods in §1.411(b)–1(b) for determining accrued benefits with respect to all active participants under the plan. The three alternative methods are the 3 percent

2008–32 I.R.B. 314 August 11, 2008

attained normal retirement age. ² Section 1.411(b)–1(b)(2)(ii)(F) provides that a plan does not satisfy the requirements of §1.411(b)–1(b)(2) if the base for the computation of retirement benefits changes solely by reason of an increase in the number of years of participation.

Rev. Rul. 2008–7, 2008–7 I.R.B. 419, see §601.601(d)(2)(ii)( b ), describes the application of the accrual rules of section 411(b)(1)(A) through (C) and the regulations under section 411(b)(1)(A) through (C) to a defined benefit plan that was amended to change the plan’s benefit formula from a traditional formula based on highest average compensation to a new lump sum-based benefit formula. Under the terms of the plan described in the revenue ruling, for an employee who was employed on the day before the change, a hypothetical account was established equal to the actuarial present value of the employee’s accrued benefit as of that date, and that account was also to be credited with subsequent pay credits and interest credits. Under transition rules set forth in the plan, the accrued benefit of certain participants is the greater of the accrued benefit provided by the hypothetical account balance at the age 65 normal retirement age and the accrued benefit determined under the traditional formula as in effect on the day before the change, but taking into account post-amendment compensation and service for a limited number of years.

Revenue Ruling 2008–7 describes how the accrued benefits of different participant groups satisfy, or fail to satisfy, the accrual rules under section 411(b)(1)(A) through (C), taking into account the requirement in §1.411(b)–1(a)(1) that a plan that determines a participant’s accrued benefits under more than one formula must aggregate the accrued benefits under all of those formulas in order to determine whether or not the accrued benefits under the plan satisfy one of the alternative methods under section 411(b)(1)(A) through (C). However, Revenue Ruling 2008–7 explains that, in the case of a plan amendment that replaces the benefit formula under the plan for all periods after the amendment, pursuant to section 411(b)(1)(B)(i)

and §1.411(b)–1(b)(2)(ii)(A), the rule that would otherwise require aggregation of the multiple formulas does not apply. Under section 411(b)(1)(B)(i) and §1.411(b)–1(b)(2)(ii)(A), any amendment to the plan which is in effect for the current plan year is treated as if it were in effect for all other plan years (including past and future plan years).

Revenue Ruling 2008–7 illustrates the application of this rule with respect to participants who only accrue benefits under the new formula (who in the ruling are referred to as participants who are not “grandfathered”). For these participants, the plan amendment completely ceases accruals under a traditional pension benefit formula that provides an annuity at normal retirement age based on service and average pay and, for all periods after the amendment, provides for the greater of the section 411(d)(6) protected benefit under the pre-amendment formula and the benefit under a new post-amendment lump sum-based benefit formula. In such a case, as stated in Revenue Ruling 2008–7, the section 411(d)(6) protected benefit under the pre-amendment formula is not aggregated with the post-amendment formula, but rather is entirely disregarded, for purposes of applying the 133 ¹ /3 percent rule because the new formula is treated under section 411(b)(1)(B)(i) and §1.411(b)–1(b)(2)(ii)(A) as having been in effect for all plan years. This analysis was reflected in Register v. PNC Fin. Servs. Group, Inc., 477 F.3d 56 (3d Cir. 2007).

In addition to satisfying the requirements of section 411(b)(1)(B), a defined benefit plan must also satisfy the age discrimination rules of section 411(b)(1)(H), taking into account section 411(b)(5), as added to the Code by the Pension Protection Act of 2006, Public Law 109–280 (120 Stat. 780) (PPA ’06). In the case of a conversion of a plan to a statutory hybrid plan pursuant to an amendment that is adopted after June 29, 2005 (a “post-PPA conversion plan”), the conversion amendment must satisfy the rule of section 411(b)(5)(B)(iii) that prohibits wearaway of benefits upon conversion. In the case of a plan converted to a statutory hybrid plan pursuant to an amendment that is adopted

on or before June 29, 2005 (a “pre-PPA conversion plan”), as provided in Notice 2007–6, the IRS will not consider and will not issue determination letters with respect to whether such a pre-PPA conversion plan satisfies the requirements of section 411(b)(1)(H) (as in effect prior to the addition of section 411(b)(5) by PPA ’06), including the effect of any wearaway. Thus, although wearaway upon conversion is expressly prohibited with respect to post-PPA conversion plans pursuant to section 411(b)(5), the IRS will not address and will not issue determination letters with respect to whether a conversion that results in wearaway with respect to a pre-PPA conversion plan violates the age discrimination rules of section 411(b)(1)(H). See §601.601(d)(2)(ii)( b ). Revenue Ruling 2008–7 provides a different analysis as to whether a plan with wearaway fails to satisfy the accrual rules of section 411(b)(1)(B) when the pre-amendment formula continues in place after the amendment for a group of participants. In such a case, where an amendment has gone into effect but continues the prior formula for some period of time with respect to one or more participants, the application of the rule in section 411(b)(1)(B)(i) and §1.411(b)–1(b)(2)(ii)(A) does not result in a disregard of the prior plan formula (which remains in effect after the amendment). Instead, the 133 ¹ /3 percent rule must be applied with respect to those participants based on the combined effect of the two ongoing formulas. ³

Revenue Ruling 2008–7 provides relief from disqualification under the Internal Revenue Code (under the authority of section 7805(b)) for a limited class of plans under which a group of employees specified under the plan receives a benefit equal to the greatest of the benefits provided under two or more formulas (an applicable “greater-of” benefit), provided that each such formula standing alone would satisfy an accrual rule of section 411(b)(1)(A), (B), or (C) for the years involved. Under the relief set forth in Rev. Rul. 2008–7, for plan years beginning before January 1, 2009, the IRS will not treat a plan eligible for the relief as failing to satisfy the accrual rules of section 411(b)(1)(A), (B),

2 However, section 411(b)(1)(H), which was added to the Code after the issuance of §1.411(b)–1, generally requires the continued accrual of benefits after attainment of normal retirement age.

3 Two federal courts have taken a position contrary to this interpretation of section 411(b)(1)(B)(i) and §1.411(b)–1(b)(2)(ii)(A) as set forth in Revenue Ruling 2008–7. See Tomlinson v. El Paso Corp., 2008 WL 762456 (D. Colo. Mar. 19, 2008); Wheeler v. Pension Value Plan for Employees of Boeing Corp., 2007 WL 2608875 (S.D. Ill. Sept. 6, 2007).

August 11, 2008 315 2008–32 I.R.B.

of accrual will have to be determined for testing purposes on a consistent basis for each year, either using each year’s compensation or high-3 average compensation. Thus, in order to test the plan under the 133 ¹ /3 percent rule, the existing final regulations would require that either the accruals under the 1 percent formula be expressed in terms of a single year’s pay or the accruals under the 1.5 percent formula be expressed in terms of high-3 average compensation. In either case, the annual rates of accrual would differ from the stated rates under the plan formulas. In addition, the annual rates of accrual for the accumulation formula when those rates are expressed in terms of high-3 average compensation could be negative in some cases. In contrast, using the exception set forth in the proposed regulation would enable the plan to be tested using the annual rates of accrual expressed in the plan formulas.

The proposed regulations would also provide an extension of this exception in the case of a plan that provides benefits based on the greatest of three or more benefit formulas. In such a case, the plan would be eligible for a modified version of the formula-by-formula testing under the proposed regulations. Under this modification, the accrued benefits determined under all benefit formulas that have the same basis are first aggregated and then those aggregated formulas are treated as a single formula for purposes of applying the separate testing rule under the proposed regulations.

Eligibility for separate testing under the proposed regulations would be constrained by an anti-abuse rule. The proposed regulations would provide that a plan is not eligible for separate testing if the Commissioner determines that the plan’s use of separate formulas with different bases is structured to evade the general requirement to aggregate formulas under §1.411(b)–1(a)(1) (for example, if the differences between the bases of the separate formulas are minor).

Proposed Effective/Applicability Date

These regulations are proposed to be effective for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2009.

and (C) solely because the plan provides an applicable “greater-of” benefit, where the separate formulas, standing alone, would satisfy an accrual rule of section 411(b)(1)(A), (B), and (C).

Explanation of Provisions

The fact pattern described in Revenue Ruling 2008–7 has occurred in a number of situations over the past few years. Employers sponsoring these plans have suggested that their plans should satisfy the accrual rules of section 411(b)(1)(A), (B), and (C), contending that any technical violation of the accrual rules is directly because the participant has higher frontloaded accruals under one formula when compared to the other formula that will ultimately provide the larger benefit under the plan. While the relief under section 7805(b) that is provided under Revenue Ruling 2008–7 addresses the situation for past years, the relief does not apply for the parallel accrual rules of section 204(b)(1)(A), (B) and (C) of ERISA and only applies to plan years beginning before January 1, 2009.

The proposed regulations would provide a limited exception to the existing requirement under §1.411(b)–1(a)(1) to aggregate the accrued benefits under all formulas in order to determine whether or not the accrued benefits under the plan for participants satisfy one of the alternative methods under section 411(b)(1)(A) through (C). Under this limited exception, certain plans that determine a participant’s benefits as the greatest of the benefits determined under two or more separate formulas would be permitted to demonstrate satisfaction of the 133 ¹ /3 percent rule of section 411(b)(1)(B) by demonstrating that each separate formula satisfies the 133 ¹ /3 percent rule of section 411(b)(1)(B). ⁴

A plan would be eligible for this exception only if each of the separate formulas uses a different basis for determining benefits. For example, a plan would be eligible for this special rule if it provides a benefit equal to the greater of the benefits under two formulas, one of which determines benefits on the basis of highest average compensation and the other of which determines benefits on the basis of

career average compensation. As another example, a traditional defined benefit plan which determined benefits based on highest average compensation that is amended to add a cash balance formula (as in the facts of Rev. Rul. 2008–7) would be eligible for this exception where, in order to provide a better transition for longer service active participants, the plan provides that a group of participants is entitled to the greater of the benefit provided by the hypothetical account balance and the benefit determined under the continuing traditional formula. In each of the above two examples, each separate formula under the plan uses a different basis for determining benefits and, therefore, both of those plans would be eligible to utilize this exception. Accordingly, both plans would be permitted to demonstrate satisfaction of the 133 ¹ /3 percent rule of section 411(b)(1)(B) by demonstrating that each separate formula under the plan satisfies the 133 ¹ /3 percent rule of section 411(b)(1)(B). The utility of this exception can be seen from the following example of a plan that provides a benefit equal to the greater of two formulas. One formula provides a benefit of 1 percent of average compensation for the 3 consecutive years of service with the highest such average multiplied by the number of years of service at normal retirement age (not in excess of 25 years of service), and the other formula provides a benefit that is the accumulation of 1.5 percent of compensation for each year of service. Under the existing final regulations, the 133 ¹ /3 percent rule of section 411(b)(1)(B) is applied by reference to the annual rate of accrual for each year from the year of the test through normal retirement age. If the participant’s accrued benefit currently is determined using the 1 percent formula (because the high-3 average compensation is significantly higher than the effective career average compensation that is used under the 1.5 percent formula), but the participant’s normal retirement benefit will ultimately be determined using the 1.5 percent formula if service continues to normal retirement age (because the 25-year service cap will apply to the 1 percent formula, but not the 1.5 percent formula), then the annual rate

4 These proposed regulations would only apply for purposes of the 1331/3 percent rule of section 411(b)(1)(B) (and the parallel rule of section 204(b)(1)(B) of ERISA). Neither Rev. Rul. 2008–7 nor these proposed regulations are relevant to (and thus they do not affect) the application of the age discrimination rules of section 411(b)(1)(H) (or the parallel age discrimination rules of section 204(b)(1)(H) of ERISA).

2008–32 I.R.B. 316 August 11, 2008

Drafting Information

The principal authors of these regulations are Lauson C. Green and Linda S. F. Marshall, Office of Division Counsel/Associate Chief Counsel (Tax Exempt and Government Entities). However, other personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in the development of these regulations.

- - - -

Proposed Amendments to the Regulations

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is proposed to be 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 1.411(b)–1 is amended by adding new paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(G) to read as follows:

§1.411(b)–1 Accrued benefit requirements .

- - - (b) - * (2) - * (ii) - * (G) Special rule for multiple formu- las —( 1 ) In general . Notwithstanding paragraph (a)(1) of this section, a plan that determines a participant’s accrued benefit as the greatest of the benefits determined under two or more separate formulas is permitted, to the extent provided under this paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(G), to demonstrate satisfaction of section 411(b)(1)(B) and this paragraph (b) by demonstrating that each separate formula satisfies the requirements of section 411(b)(1)(B) and this paragraph (b).

( 2 ) Separate bases requirement . A plan is eligible for separate testing under this paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(G) if each of the separate formulas uses a different basis for determining benefits. For example, a plan is eligible for this special rule if it provides an accrued benefit equal to the greater of the benefits under two formulas, one of which determines accrued benefits on the basis of highest average compensation and the other of which determines accrued benefits

Special Analyses

Comments and Public Hearing

Under these proposed regulations, a plan eligible for the separate testing option would not violate the accrual rules merely because the plan provides higher frontloaded accruals under one formula when compared to the other formula that will ultimately provide the larger benefit under the plan. Some commentators have suggested a broader rule that would modify the regulations to provide that a plan does not violate the accrual rules where the plan provides a pattern of accruals that affords higher benefits in earlier years (that is, benefit accruals are frontloaded) relative to a pattern of accruals that satisfies the accrual rules. The 3 percent method of section 411(b)(1)(A) and the fractional rule of section 411(b)(1)(C) automatically achieve this result because they are cumulative tests that test on the basis of the total accrued benefit compared to the projected normal retirement benefit. By contrast, the 133 ¹ /3 percent rule is based on a comparison of the “annual rate at which any individual who is or could be a participant

can accrue the retirement benefits payable at normal retirement age” for a later plan year with the annual rate for an earlier plan year. The existing final regulations include an example (§1.411(b)–1(b)(2)(iii), Example (3) ) that demonstrates how a plan fails the 133 ¹ /3 percent rule where it provides accruals in earlier years that are frontloaded relative to accruals that apply in later years. The proposed regulations do not include a provision under the 133 ¹ /3 percent rule that recognizes prior frontloading of benefits. However, commentators who would suggest such a provision under the 133 ¹ /3 percent rule should describe how that provision would fit within the statutory language of section 411(b)(1)(B), including the application of section 411(b)(1)(B)(i) (which requires that an amendment to the plan that is in effect for the current year be treated as in effect for all other plan years).

A public hearing has been scheduled for October 15, 2008, beginning at 10 a.m. in the Auditorium, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC. Due to building security procedures, visitors must enter at the Constitution Avenue entrance. In addition, all visitors must present photo identification to enter the building. Because of access restrictions, visitors will not be admitted 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 FURTHER IN- FORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) apply to the hearing. Persons who wish to present oral comments at the hearing must submit written or electronic comments by September 16, 2008, and an outline of topics to be discussed and the amount of time to be devoted to each topic (a signed original and eight (8) copies) by September 24, 2008. A period of 10 minutes will be allotted to each person for making comments. 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.

August 11, 2008 317 2008–32 I.R.B.

Miller County New Vision Coalition, Inc.

Colquitt, GA Buyer’s Dream Fund

Cleveland Heights, OH American Bowling Congress

Wyoming, MI Accelerated Trust, Inc.

Boca Raton, FL National Home Charities, Inc.

Westminster, CO Independent Group, Inc.

Covington, KY Shepherd Hills Development Corporation

Las Vegas, NV

Foundations Status of Certain Organizations

Announcement 2008–70

The following organizations have failed to establish or have been unable to maintain their status as public charities or as operating 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 section 508(b) of the Code. This listing does not indicate that the organizations have lost their status as organizations described in section 501(c)(3), eligible to receive deductible contributions.

Former Public Charities. The following organizations (which have been treated as organizations that are not private foundations described in section 509(a) of the Code) are now classified as private foundations.

Adonai Christian Ministries, Inc.,

Norfolk, VA Advance Humanity Aide AHA,

McClellanville, SC Almarie King Education Fund,

Port Orchard, WA Alpha and Omega Church Alpha

and Omega Immanuel NFP-Inc., Chicago, IL Alvarado Project, San Francisco, CA American Cowboy Association, Inc.,

Longwood, FL American Indian Community History

Center, Kensington, CA Americare Community Services, Inc.,

Richmond, WA

on the basis of career average compensation. As another example, a defined benefit plan that bases benefits on highest average compensation and that is amended to add a statutory hybrid benefit formula (as defined in §1.411(a)(13)–1(d)(3)) that provides for pay credits to be made based on each year’s compensation is eligible for this separate testing exception if the plan provides that one or more participants are entitled to the greater of the benefit determined under the statutory hybrid benefit formula and the benefit determined under the original formula.

( 3 ) Plans with three or more formulas . If a plan determines a participant’s benefits as the greatest of the benefits determined under three or more separate formulas, but two or more of the formulas use the same basis for determining benefits, then the plan may nonetheless apply paragraphs (b)(2)(ii)(G)( 1 ) and ( 2 ) of this section by aggregating all benefit formulas that have the same basis and treating those aggregated formulas as a single formula for purposes of paragraphs (b)(2)(ii)(G)( 1 ) and ( 2 ) of this section.

( 4 ) Anti-abuse rule . A plan is not eligible for separate testing under this paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(G) if the Commissioner determines that the plan’s use of separate formulas with different bases is structured to evade the requirement to aggregate formulas under paragraph (a)(1) of this section (for example, if the differences between the bases of the separate formulas are minor).

( 5 ) Effective/applicability date . This paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(G) is applicable for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2009.

Steven T. Miller, Acting Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement.

(Filed by the Office of the Federal Register on June 17, 2008, 8:45 a.m., and published in the issue of the Federal Register for June 18, 2008, 73 F.R. 34665)

Deletions From Cumulative List of Organizations Contributions to Which are Deductible Under Section 170 of the Code

Announcement 2008–69

The Internal Revenue Service has revoked its determination that the organizations listed below qualify as organizations described in sections 501(c)(3) and 170(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Generally, the Service will not disallow deductions for contributions made to a listed organization on or before the date of announcement in the Internal Revenue Bulletin that an organization no longer qualifies. However, the Service is not precluded from disallowing a deduction for any contributions made after an organization ceases to qualify under section 170(c)(2) if the organization has not timely filed a suit for declaratory judgment under section 7428 and if the contributor (1) had knowledge of the revocation of the ruling or determination letter, (2) was aware that such revocation was imminent, or (3) was in part responsible for or was aware of the activities or omissions of the organization that brought about this revocation.

If on the other hand a suit for declaratory judgment has been timely filed, contributions from individuals and organizations described in section 170(c)(2) that are otherwise allowable will continue to be deductible. Protection under section 7428(c) would begin on August 11, 2008, and would end on the date the court first determines that the organization is not described in section 170(c)(2) as more particularly set forth in section 7428(c)(1). For individual contributors, the maximum deduction protected is $1,000, with a husband and wife treated as one contributor. This benefit is not extended to any individual, in whole or in part, for the acts or omissions of the organization that were the basis for revocation.

Homes for All, Inc.

Fort Myers, FL H & H Housing, Inc.

Los Angeles, CA Family Home Providers, Inc.

Cumming, GA

2008–32 I.R.B. 318 August 11, 2008

Foundation for Agape of North Alabama,

Huntsville, AL Foundation for People With Disabilities,

Fulton, NY Fourth Watch Ministries, Seymour, TN Francies Nonprofit Housing Community

Development Corporation, Rochester, MI Friendly Community Services Outreach,

Inc., Victorville, CA Friendly Group Home, Inc.,

Lehigh Acres, FL Friends & Neighbors Elderly Support

& Housing Services of LA, Inc., Lafayette, LA Friends of Idasa, Inc., Washington, DC Full Gospel Globe Mission Church,

Powell, OH Genesis House, Inc., Indianapolis, IN Ghana Golden Pod Organization, Inc.,

Bronx, NY Ghova Institute, Inc., Hyattsville, MD Gilbert Lindsay Manor Tenant

Committe-Association, Los Angeles, CA Global Harvest Ministerial Association,

Inc., Clearwater, FL Golden Gate Community Development

Corporation, Raeford, NC Good Stewardship, Inc., Summerville, SC Grace and Mercy Foundation,

Inglewood, CA Grazette Halfway House, Inc.,

West Palm Beach, FL Gregory House Foundation, Jackson, MS Gregory Training Center,

San Francisco, CA Grupo Jalisco En San Antonio TX,

San Antonio, TX Guardian Angel Foster Home, Inc.,

Hinesville, GA Guardians of Childrens and Parents

Family Rights Organization, Washington, DC Guidance Behind the Walls, Aurora, CO Hawaii Mana, Honolulu, HI Help Us, Incorporated, Martinsburg, WV Helping Hands Community Resource

Distribution Center, Inc., Miami, FL Helping Hands Family Services,

Chicago, IL Heritage House, Inc., Lithonia, GA His Greatest Creation, Fort Worth, TX Historic Stop Six Empowerment

Coalition, Fort Worth, TX Hollies Hope, Inc., Metairie, LA Home Buyers Network, Inc.,

McDonough, GA

Anchored in Excellence Community

Development Corporation, Baytown, TX Annie Laura Avant Community, Inc.,

Detroit, MI Aqua Resources, Inc., Beaumont, TX Arkansas Hunters Feeding the Hungry,

Inc., Little Rock, AR Arts Fund Inc., Salem, MA Ascended Masters Healing Center for the

Mind Body and Soul, Tucson, AZ Associated Lenders, Desoto, TX Auko Community Development

Corporaton, Los Angeles, CA B & S Kitter Kare, Crane, MO Baby Basics, Inc., Milwaukee, WI Backpacks for Kids, Dallas, TX Baldwin Bethany Community

Development Corporation, Los Angeles, CA B E S T Academy, Houston, TX Bewear Prison Ministry, Inc., Houston, TX Breath of Life of Central Florida,

Lake Panasoffke, FL BRH New Communities, Inc.,

Baton Rouge, LA Bridges of Hope Community

Development Center, Inc., Inglewood, CA Brooks Chapel Project Outreach, Inc.,

Moscow, TN Building Blocks Center, Inc., Fresno, TX Caeli Foundation, Orem, UT Cairs, Inc., Nokomis, FL California Museum of Military History,

Inc., San Francisco, CA CAPPA Children’s Foundation,

Sacramento, CA Caring for Cats Charitable Trust,

Stoughton, MA Caring for Families, Los Angeles, CA Center for Religious Architecture,

Chicago, IL Charity Challenges, Inc., Rochester, NY Chisholm Community Services of

Oklahoma, Inc., Jefferson, TX Choice Resolutions Group, Inc.,

Houston, TX Cian Society Foundation, New York, NY Circle of Life Foundation, Inc.,

Odenton, MD Citizens for Parental Rights,

Grand Rapids, MI City Community Development

Corporation, Cleveland, OH Claver House of Renewal NFP,

Chicago, IL College Solutions, Inc., Gilbert, AZ

Come and Dine Ministries, Inc.,

Adelphi, MD Committee to Preserve Luna Park

Housing, Brooklyn, NY Community Awareness Committee,

Avalon, PA Community Mobilization Organization,

Bronx, NY Comnec, Incorporated, Los Angeles, CA Compassion Global Relief Mission,

Randallstown, MD Concerned Rosebud Area Citizens, Inc.,

White River, SD Creston Community Development

Corporation, Inc., Houston, TX Crew Ensemble, Inc., Baltimore, MD Culverton Affordable Housing

Development Fund Company, Inc., Troy, NY Dawn of Hope, Granville, OH Daybreak Community Development

Corp., Plainfield, NJ Deanza Clinic, Calexico, CA Divine Institute of Modeling & Etiquette,

Inc., Tempe, AZ Dublin Area Senior Volunteer Program,

Dublin, CA Eagles Missionary Supply, Inc.,

Midlothian, VA Eastside Affordable Housing Program,

Bellevue, WA Eastside Community and Development

Center, Inc., Springfield, IL Eden Foundation, Incorporated,

Winter Park, FL Education Support, Inc., Cheyenne, WY E G T Community Development Corp.,

Bayonne, NJ Emmanuel Christian Fellowship

Ministries, Inc., Severn, MD Emmanuel House, Newark, NJ E-nitiative Wealth, Inc., Torrance, CA E.R. Rewis Water & Spirit Outreach, Inc.,

Chokoloskee, FL Evangelical Crusade Outreach,

Phoenix, AZ Ezekiel House, Inc., Lansing, MI Faith Temple Outreach Ministries,

Grenada, MS Fannie Roberts Adult Day Care,

Thomasville, GA Financial Fitness Center, Inc., FFC,

Atlanta, GA Flips Community Development &

Outreach of Texas, Inc., Irving, TX For Childrens Sake of Maryland,

Austin, TX

August 11, 2008 319 2008–32 I.R.B.

Paradigm Athletic Association,

Silver Springs, MD PASC Academy Charter School,

Stockton, CA Peace Education Foundation of Florida,

Inc., Hollywood, FL Peek Adventures, Lauderdale, MN Photoaid, Inc., New York, NY Prairie Ridge Elementary School Parent

Teacher Organization, Longmont, CO Princeton Future Farmer Agriculture

Corporation, Princeton, CA Proceed Community Development

Corporation, Inc., Elizabeth, NJ Project Clean Across America, Avon, CO Project Hope, Inc., Northport, AL Pueblo Zoological Society Foundation,

Pueblo, CO Raising the Bar, Blue Springs, MO RD Foundation, Rockford, IL Rebuilding Everyone’s Attitude Causes

Hope (REACH), Spring, TX Reform & Independent Services, Inc.,

Detroit, MI Rescue Ministries International, Inc.,

Lakeland, FL River Ridge Learning Center,

River Ridge, LA Riverside County Underwater Search and

Recovery Team, Inc., Perris, CA ROCS, Scottsdale, AZ Robert L. Campbell Ministries, Inc.,

Sugar Land, TX Roharco, Inc., Cincinnati, OH Rural West Texas Community

Partnerships, Denver City, TX Safespaces Org., Brentwood, CA Sant Kiltirel Mapou, Inc., Miami, FL Second Baptist Community Development

NFP, Evanston, IL Seneca High School Foundation,

Seneca, IL Senior Services, Inc., Wheatfield, NY Shelton and Lucille Buchanan Family

Foundation, San Diego, CA Sierra Development Corporation,

Somerset, NJ Southwest Community Center of

Rockford, Rockford, IL Special Education Advocacy Services for

Children and Youth, Washington, DC Spirit Builders, Inc., Cordova, TN Spiritual Essence by Pamela Dorsey,

Dallas, TX St. Paul/Gillespie-Selden Rural Life

Community Center, Inc., Cordele, GA Stepping Stones Academy, Inc.,

Crosby, TX

HOPE, Philippi, WV Hopkins County Healthcare Service,

Sulphur Springs, TX Humanity Resources, Inc.,

Ft. Lauderdale, FL Illinois Chaplaincy, Inc., Chicago, IL In the Gap Ministries Community

Development Corporation, Charlotte, NC Infamous Warriors Drill Team of Des

Moines, Des Moines, IA Inner Circle Counsel Enterprise, Inc.,

Miami, FL Institute for World Transformation,

Antioch, CA Inter-Action, Inc., Stone Mountain, GA International Association of Rosenbergs

System of Integrative Body Psychotherapy, Santa Monica, CA International Bodytalk Foundation, Inc.,

Sarasota, FL Ivana Housing Development Corporation,

Citrus Heights, CA James A. Rhodes Leadership Foundation,

Columbus, OH Jesus Children Ministry, Sacramento, CA Joshua Ministries, Inc., Nashville, TN Jubilee House, Riverside, CA Khmer County Services of Florida,

Cerritos, CA L & K Teen Summit, Jacksonville, FL Laura B. Collins Child Development

Center, Inc., Chicago, IL Life Center, Inc., Newport News, VA Lifefaqs Org., Oakdale, CT Lord’s Kitchenette & Ministries of Helps,

Inc., Tulsa, OK Los Angeles Oral Health Foundation,

Los Angeles, CA Lott of Love Foundation, Inc.,

Baton Rouge, LA Love at Work Group, Inc.,

Washington, DC Loving Care Foundation, Salem, VA Marcelo Balboa Ironman Foundation,

Superior, CO Mary Alice Foundation, Inc.,

Milwaukee, WI Mary Esther Enterprises, Inc., Shelby, NC McPherson Gardens, Inc., Euclid, OH Medicine Lodge, Inc., Great Falls, MT Metrovoice Youth Entrepreneurs Program,

Inc., Washington, DC Michigan Elite Hoops, Detroit, MI Michigan Institute for Prevention and

Intervention, Gross Pointe, MI Middle Tennessee Labrador Retriever

Rescue, Nashville, TN

Milestone Social Services, Inc.,

Winter Park, FL Mobiles Pride Youth Organization,

Mobile, AL Molly Crouch Anderson Scholarship

Foundation, Itasca, TX Moorish Development Corporation,

Wichita, KS More Than a Memory Productions,

Channelview, TX Morning Star Community Development

Corporation, Williamston, NC Mountain View Home for the Elderly

Corp., Cidra, PR Mt. Sinai Senior Services, Inc.,

South Setuaket, NY Multicultural Citizens Advisory

Commissioners, Inc., Atlantic City, NJ My Contribution, Hercules, CA My Fathers House, Shaker Heights, OH National Artist Development Academy,

Inc., Brooklyn, NY National Center for Open Source

and Education Corporation, Thetford Center, VT National Interscholastic Motorsports

Association, Inc., NIMA, Warren, AR Natural Home, Inc., Washington, DC NBPT, Inc., Selma, AL Neighborhood Center for Greater Omaha,

Omaha, NE New Creations Revelations Ministries,

Riverside, CA New World Shalom Initiative,

Clarksdale, MS Next Step up Ministries, Greensboro, NC North Miami Performing Arts, Inc.,

Opalocka, FL Northwest Collaborative, Spokane, WA Northwest Intake Center, Inc.,

Cypress, TX Oakville Community Center, Inc.,

Danville, AL Omni Women Center, Washington, DC Opendoor Services, Inc.-Employment

Services, Modesto, CA Oregon Association of Family Career

and Community Leaders of America, Salem, OR Oregon Association of Health

Occupations Students of America, Salem, OR Organization for the Development

of Agriculture in Haiti OADH, Brooklyn, NY Othell Adkins Ministries, Gulfport, MS Our Loving Arms, Inc., Buffalo, NY

2008–32 I.R.B. 320 August 11, 2008

Strategies to Equip People for Success,

Inc., Lauderdale Lakes, FL Sun Civic League, Sun, LA Tabernacle of Faith Outreach Ministries,

Detroit, MI Temple Education Ministries, Inc.,

Inmann, SC Texas Institute for Housing Opportunities,

Inc., Austin, TX Time of the End Ministries, San Diego, CA T. J. Striders Youth Track and Field Club,

San Bernardino, CA TNT Connections Charities, Inc.,

Jacksonville, FL Total Life Center, Virginia Beach, VA Transformations Community

Development Corporation, Inc., Bowie, MD Transformers International, Inc.,

Miami, FL Tutor in Town, Incorporated, Miami, FL Valley Initiative for Affordable Housing,

Merced, CA Victory Foundation, Corona, CA Vision Inspires Synergy in Organizations

Nationwide, Inc., Elizabeth, NJ Visionary Institute for Total Ageless

Living, Inc., Potomac, MD Ujima Consortium, Inc., Southfield, MI Wee Bee Care, Inc., Stockbridge, CA West Georgia Community Development

Corporation, Newnan, GA WGH Heritage, Inc., Grand Prairie, TX Wilmingtonians, Inc., Middletown, DE Wings Foundation, Inc., Oak Hill, WV Women of Color Public Policy and

Education Institute, Inc., Brooklyn, NY Won Last Chance, Inc., Chandler, AZ Work Works, Inc., Poughkeepsie, NY Worstell Foundation, Mexico, MO Youth Solutions, Inc., Brandon, MS

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 Internal Revenue Service will issue a ruling or determination letter with the revised classification as to foundation status. Grantors and contributors may thereafter rely upon such ruling or determination letter as provided in section 1.509(a)–7 of the Income Tax Regulations. It is not the practice of the Service to announce such revised classification of foundation status in the Internal Revenue Bulletin.

Multiemployer Plan Funding Guidance; Correction

Announcement 2008–71

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Correction to a notice of a public hearing on proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This document contains a correction to a notice of public hearing (Announcement 2008–64, 2008–28 I.R.B. 114) on a notice of proposed rulemaking that was published in the Federal Reg- ister on Friday, June 27, 2008 (73 FR 36476) providing additional rules for certain multiemployer defined benefit plans that are in effect on July 16, 2006. These proposed regulations affect sponsors and administrators of, and participants in multiemployer plans that are in either endangered or critical status. These regulations are necessary to implement the new rules set forth in section 432 that are effective for plan years beginning after 2007. The proposed regulations reflect changes made by the Pension Protection Act of 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bruce Perlin, (202) 622–6090 (not a toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The correction notice that is the subject of this document is under section 432 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Need for Correction

As published, a notice of a public hearing on proposed rulemaking (REG–151135–07) contains an error that may prove to be misleading and is in need of clarification.

Correction of Publication

Accordingly, the publication of a notice of public hearing on proposed rulemaking (REG–151135–07), which was the subject of FR Doc. E8–14563, is corrected as follows:

On page 36477, column 1, under the caption “ SUPPLEMENTARY INFOR- MATION: ”, line 5, the language “ Fed- eral Register on Tuesday, March 8,” is corrected to read “ Federal Register on Tuesday, March 18,”.

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 July 1, 2008, 8:45 a.m., and published in the issue of the Federal Register for July 2, 2008, 73 F.R. 37910)

Section 7428(c) Validation of Certain Contributions Made During Pendency of Declaratory Judgment Proceedings

Announcement 2007–72

This announcement serves notice to potential donors that the organization listed below has recently filed a timely declaratory judgment suit under section 7428 of the Code, challenging revocation of its status as an eligible donee under section 170(c)(2). Protection under section 7428(c) of the Code begins on the date that the notice of revocation is published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin and ends on the date on which a court first determines that an organization is not described in section 170(c)(2), as more particularly set forth in section 7428(c)(1).

In the case of individual contributors, the maximum amount of contributions protected during this period is limited to $1,000.00, with a husband and wife being treated as one contributor. This protection is not extended to any individual who was responsible, in whole or in part, for the acts or omissions of the organization that were the basis for the revocation. This protection also applies (but without limitation as to amount) to organizations described in section 170(c)(2) which are exempt from tax under section 501(a). If the organization ultimately prevails in its declaratory judgment suit, deductibility of contributions would be subject to the

August 11, 2008 321 2008–32 I.R.B.

normal limitations set forth under section Sea of Sound Production, Inc. 170. Midlothian, VA

Educate the Children, Inc.

Family Home Providers, Inc.

Cumming, GA

Long Beach, CA

2008–32 I.R.B. 322 August 11, 2008