rr-07-38.pdf

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.

This collection currently includes the publisher’s available advance-release directory. Historical bulletin renditions are discovered separately; an advance-release record alone does not certify the collection archive complete.

Part I

Section 72.--Annuities: Certain Proceeds of Endowment and Life Insurance
Contracts

26 CFR: §72
(Also: §7702A)

Rev. Rul. 2007-38

ISSUE
If a taxpayer that owns multiple modified endowment contracts (MECs)
issued by the same insurance company in the same calendar year exchanges
some of those MECs for new MECs issued by a second insurance company, are
the new contracts required to be aggregated with the remaining original contracts
under §72(e)(12) of the Internal Revenue Code?
FACTS
In Year 1, Original Company, an insurance company subject to tax under
Part 1 of subchapter L, issued to Taxpayer multiple life insurance contracts
(Original Contracts) that were modified endowment contracts (MECs) within the
meaning of §7702A. The Original Contracts covered the lives of employees,
officers and directors who were employed by Taxpayer at the time the contracts
were issued. Taxpayer appropriately treated the Original Contracts as a single

2
MEC under the authority of §72(e)(11) (redesignated as §72(e)(12) by the
Pension Protection Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-280, §844(a), 120 Stat. 780).
In Year 4, Taxpayer exchanged some of the Original Contracts for new life
insurance contracts (New Contracts) issued by an unrelated life insurance
company (New Company) in an exchange that qualified for nonrecognition of
gain or loss under §1035. The new contracts were also MECs within the
meaning of §7702A. Taxpayer received no consideration in the exchange.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Section 1035 provides that no gain or loss is recognized on the exchange
of a life insurance contract for another life insurance contract, or for an
endowment or annuity contract. Under §1.1035-1 of the Income Tax
Regulations, nonrecognition of gain or loss on the exchange of life insurance
contracts is limited to cases where the policies exchanged relate to the same
insured.
Section 7702A defines a modified endowment contract (MEC) as a
contract that meets the requirement of § 7702 but fails to meet the 7-pay test of
§7702A(b), or that is received in exchange for a contract that is a MEC. Under
§7702A(b), a contract fails to meet the 7-pay test if the accumulated amount paid
under the contract at any time during the first seven contract years exceeds the
sum of the net level premiums that would have been paid on or before that time if
the contract provided for paid-up future benefits after the payment of seven level
annual premiums.

3
Section 72(e)(10) provides that a MEC is subject to the rules of
§72(e)(2)(B) (which taxes non-annuity distributions on an income-out-first basis)
and §72(e)(4)(A) (which generally treats loans, assignments, or pledges of any
portion of the value of a MEC as non-annuity distributions). Further, under
§72(v), an amount received under a MEC may be subject to a 10% additional
tax.
Section 72(e)(12)(A)(i) provides that, for purposes of determining the
amount that is includible in gross income under § 72(e), all MECs issued by the
same company to the same policyholder during a calendar year are treated as a
single MEC. Section 72(e)(12) was added to the Code by the Technical and
Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988 (TAMRA), §5012(d)(2), 1988-3 C.B. 324.
The legislative history stated:
In order to stop the marketing of serial contracts that are designed
to avoid the rules applicable to modified endowment contracts, the
conference agreement provides that all modified endowment
contracts issued by the same insurer (or affiliates) to the same
policyholder during any 12-month period are to be aggregated for
purposes of determining the amount of any distribution that is
includible in gross income. In addition, all annuity contracts issued
by the same insurer (or affiliates) to the same policyholder during
any 12-month period are to be aggregated for purposes of
determining the amount of any distribution that is includible in gross
income. Finally, the Treasury Department is provided regulatory
authority to prevent the avoidance of the rules contained in section
72(e) through the serial purchase of contacts or otherwise.

H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 1104, 100
th
Cong., 2d Sess. II-103 (1988), 1988-3 C.B. 593.

The provision was subsequently amended by the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1989 (OBRA), Pub. L. No. 101-239, §7815(a)(5), 103 Stat.
2414 (1989), to strike the term "12-month period" and in its place insert "calendar

4
year." The OBRA conference report reiterates that the provision applies to
contracts “that are issued by the same insurer (or affiliates.)” H. Conf. Rep. No.
386, 101
st
Cong., 1
st
Sess. 665 (1989).
In the present case, the Original Contracts were issued to Taxpayer by the
same company in the same calendar year and were, accordingly, aggregated in
accordance with §72(e)(12). After the exchange of some of the Original
Contracts for New Contracts, the remaining Original Contracts were still issued to
Taxpayer by the same company (Original Company) in the same calendar year
(Year 1) and, accordingly, are still treated as a single MEC. Likewise, the New
Contracts received in the exchange were issued to Taxpayer by the same
company (New Company) in the same calendar year (Year 4) and, accordingly,
are also treated as a single MEC. The remaining Original Contracts and the New
Contracts are not aggregated with each other, however, because they were not
issued to Taxpayer by the same company in the same calendar year. The result
in this case would be the same if, instead of individually issued MECs, the
Original Contracts and New Contracts were evidenced by certificates that were
issued under a group contract or master contract and that were treated as
separate contracts for purposes of §§817(h), 7702, and 7702A.

5
HOLDING
If a taxpayer that owns multiple modified endowment contracts (MECs)
issued by the same insurance company in the same calendar year exchanges
some of those MECs for new MECs issued by a second insurance company, the
new contracts are not required to be aggregated with the remaining original
contracts under §72(e)(12).
DRAFTING INFORMATION
The principal author of this revenue ruling is Melissa S. Luxner of the
Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Financial Institutions & Products). For further
information regarding this revenue ruling, contact Ms. Luxner at (202) 622-3970
(not a toll-free call).