Edgar Filing: MFS INTERMEDIATE INCOME TRUST

MFS INTERMEDIATE INCOME TRUST N-CSR

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM N-CSR

CERTIFIED SHAREHOLDER REPORT OF

REGISTERED MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT COMPANIES

Investment Company Act file number 811-5440

MFS INTERMEDIATE INCOME TRUST

(Exact name of registrant as specified in charter)

111 Huntington Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02199

(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip code)

Susan S. Newton

Massachusetts Financial Services Company

111 Huntington Avenue

Boston, Massachusetts 02199

(Name and address of agents for service)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (617) 954-5000

Date of fiscal year end: October 31

Date of reporting period: October 31, 2013

ITEM 1.

REPORTS TO STOCKHOLDERS.

ANNUAL REPORT

October 31, 2013

LOGO

MFS® INTERMEDIATE INCOME
TRUST

LOGO

MIN-ANN

Managed Distribution Policy Disclosure

The MFS Intermediate Income Trust’s (the fund) Board of Trustees has adopted a managed distribution policy. The fund seeks to pay monthly distributions based on an annual rate of 8.5% of the fund’s average monthly net asset value. The fund’s total return in relation to changes in net asset value is presented in the Financial Highlights. You should not draw any conclusions about the fund’s investment performance from the amount of the current distribution or from the terms of the fund’s managed distribution policy. The Board may amend or terminate the managed distribution policy at any time without prior notice to fund shareholders; however, at this time, there are no reasonably foreseeable circumstances that might cause the termination of the managed distribution policy.

With each distribution, the fund will issue a notice to shareholders and an accompanying press release which will provide detailed information regarding the amount and composition of the distribution and other related information. In accordance with the amounts and sources of distributions reported in the notice to shareholders – the sources of distributions are only estimates and are not being provided for tax reporting purposes. The actual amounts and sources of the amounts for tax reporting purposes will depend upon the fund’s investment experience during the remainder of its fiscal year and may be subject to changes based on tax regulations. The fund will send you a Form 1099-DIV for the calendar year that will tell you how to report these distributions for federal income tax purposes.

Under a managed distribution policy the fund may at times distribute more than its net investment income and net realized capital gains; therefore, a portion of your distribution may result in a return of capital. A return of capital may occur, for example, when some or all of the money that you invested in the fund is paid back to you. A return of capital does not necessarily reflect the fund’s investment performance and should not be confused with ‘yield’ or ‘income’.

MFS® INTERMEDIATE INCOME TRUST

New York Stock Exchange Symbol: MIN


Letter from the Chairman and CEO			1
Portfolio composition			2
Management review			4
Performance summary			6
Portfolio managers’ profiles			9
Dividend reinvestment and cash purchase plan			10
Portfolio of investments			11
Statement of assets and liabilities			25
Statement of operations			26
Statements of changes in net assets			27
Financial highlights			28
Notes to financial statements			29
Report of independent registered public accounting firm			40
Results of shareholder meeting			41
Trustees and officers			42
Board review of investment advisory agreement			47
Proxy voting policies and information			51
Quarterly portfolio disclosure			51
Further information			51
Federal tax information			51
MFS^® privacy notice			52
Contact information back cover

NOT FDIC INSURED Ÿ MAY LOSE VALUE Ÿ NO BANK GUARANTEE

LOGO

LETTER FROM THE CHAIRMAN AND CEO

Dear Shareholders:

The global economy is trending toward growth again despite risks created by the U.S. government’s gridlock. The eurozone has emerged from its 18-month-long recession.

However, unemployment in the region persists at historically high levels. The U.K. economy is on the rebound. China’s economic gauges are improving and point toward expansion. And Japan’s aggressive program of monetary easing is showing signs of success.

The U.S. Federal Reserve’s expected tapering of its bond-buying stimulus program — telegraphed in the spring and delayed in September — has weighed on global markets. Emerging markets have borne much of the brunt, with currency values dropping and nervous investors seeking safety elsewhere. The greatest

threat to global economic recovery now appears to be related to the U.S. government’s impasse. While the tensions surrounding the 16-day government shutdown and potential U.S. debt default have dissipated, another round of potential gridlock lies ahead early in 2014, with the next U.S. budget and debt ceiling deadlines.

As always, managing risk in the face of uncertainty remains a top priority for investors. At MFS®, our uniquely collaborative investment process employs integrated, global research and active risk management. Our global team of investment professionals shares ideas and evaluates opportunities across continents, investment disciplines and asset classes — all with a goal of building better insights, and ultimately better results, for our clients.

We are mindful of the many economic challenges investors face, and believe it is more important than ever to maintain a long-term view and employ time-tested principles, such as asset allocation and diversification. We remain confident that our unique approach can serve investors well as they work with their financial advisors to identify and pursue the most suitable opportunities.

Respectfully,

LOGO

Robert J. Manning

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

MFS Investment Management®

December 16, 2013

The opinions expressed in this letter are subject to change, may not be relied upon for investment advice, and no forecasts can be guaranteed.

PORTFOLIO COMPOSITION

Portfolio structure (i)

LOGO


Fixed income sectors (i)
High Grade Corporates			64.0%
Non-U.S. Government Bonds			15.7%
Emerging Markets Bonds			9.9%
Mortgage-Backed Securities			4.5%
Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities			2.3%
U.S. Government Agencies			1.7%
Asset-Backed Securities			1.2%
Municipal Bonds			0.3%
Collateralized Debt Obligations			0.3%
High Yield Corporates			0.2%
U.S. Treasury Securities			(4.1)%


Composition including fixed income credit quality (a)(i)
AAA			7.6%
AA			12.8%
A			31.0%
BBB			41.8%
BB			0.7%
CCC (o)			0.0%
U.S. Government (o)			0.0%
Federal Agencies			6.2%
Not Rated			(4.1)%
Cash & Other			4.0%

Portfolio facts (i)
Average Duration (d)			3.3
Average Effective Maturity (m)			4.3 yrs.

Issuer country weightings (i)(x)
United States			48.3%
France			6.1%
United Kingdom			5.5%
Japan			3.9%
Canada			3.8%
Netherlands			3.7%
Italy			3.5%
Australia			2.9%
Sweden			2.6%
Other Countries			19.7%

Portfolio Composition – continued

(a)

For all securities other than those specifically described below, ratings are assigned to underlying securities utilizing ratings from Moody’s, Fitch, and Standard & Poor’s rating agencies and applying the following hierarchy: If all three agencies provide a rating, the middle rating (after dropping the highest and lowest ratings) is assigned; if two of the three agencies rate a security, the lower of the two is assigned. Ratings are shown in the S&P and Fitch scale (e.g., AAA). Securities rated BBB or higher are considered investment grade. All ratings are subject to change. U.S. Government includes securities issued by the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Federal Agencies includes rated and unrated U.S. Agency fixed-income securities, U.S. Agency mortgage-backed securities, and collateralized mortgage obligations of U.S. Agency mortgage-backed securities. Not Rated includes fixed income securities, including fixed income futures contracts, which have not been rated by any rating agency. Cash & Other includes cash, other assets less liabilities, offsets to derivative positions, and short-term securities. The fund may not hold all of these instruments. The fund is not rated by these agencies.

(d)	Duration is a measure of how much a bond’s price is likely to fluctuate with general changes in interest rates, e.g., if rates rise 1.00%, a bond with a 5-year duration is likely to lose about 5.00% of its value due to the interest rate move.

(i)

For purposes of this presentation, the components include the market value of securities, and reflect the impact of the equivalent exposure of derivative positions, if any. These amounts may be negative from time to time. Equivalent exposure is a calculated amount that translates the derivative position into a reasonable approximation of the amount of the underlying asset that the portfolio would have to hold at a given point in time to have the same price sensitivity that results from the portfolio’s ownership of the derivative contract. When dealing with derivatives, equivalent exposure is a more representative measure of the potential impact of a position on portfolio performance than market value. The bond component will include any accrued interest amounts.

(m)

In determining an instrument’s effective maturity for purposes of calculating the fund’s dollar-weighted average effective maturity, MFS uses the instrument’s stated maturity or, if applicable, an earlier date on which MFS believes it is probable that a maturity-shortening device (such as a put, pre-refunding or prepayment) will cause the instrument to be repaid. Such an earlier date can be substantially shorter than the instrument’s stated maturity.

(o)	Less than 0.1%.

(x)	Represents the portfolio’s exposure to issuer countries as a percentage of a portfolio’s net assets.

Where the fund holds convertible bonds, these are treated as part of the equity portion of the portfolio.

Percentages are based on net assets as of 10/31/13.

The portfolio is actively managed and current holdings may be different.

MANAGEMENT REVIEW

Summary of Results

MFS Intermediate Income Trust (“fund”) is a closed-end fund normally investing primarily in debt instruments.

For the twelve months ended October 31, 2013, shares of the MFS Intermediate Income Trust provided a total return of 0.67%, at net asset value and a total return of –11.67%, at market value. This compares with a return of –0.03% for the fund’s benchmark, the Barclays Intermediate U.S. Government/Credit Bond Index (“Barclays Index”). Effective April 1, 2013, the Barclays Intermediate U.S. Government/Credit Bond Index replaced the Barclays Intermediate U.S. Government Bond Index as the fund’s primary benchmark. The Barclays Intermediate U.S. Government Bond Index generated a return of –0.27% over the reporting period. Over the same period, the fund’s other benchmark, the MFS Intermediate Income Trust Blended Index – Current (“Blended Index”), generated a return of 0.70%. The Blended Index reflects the blended returns of various fixed income market indices, with percentage allocations to each index designed to resemble the fixed income allocations of the fund. The market indices and related percentage allocations used to compile the Blended Index are set forth in the Performance Summary.

The performance commentary below is based on the net asset value performance of the fund which reflects the performance of the underlying pool of assets held by the fund. The total return at market value represents the return earned by owners of the shares of the fund which are traded publicly on the exchange.

Market Environment

At the beginning of the period, year-end fiscal cliff negotiations between the Republicans in the US Congress and President Obama were a particular source of market attention, where uncertainty surrounding the fiscal negotiations continued right up to the end-of-year deadline. A last minute political agreement averted the worst-case scenario and markets gravitated towards risk assets again, though the implementation of the US budget sequester, combined with concerns surrounding the Italian election results, was a source of uncertainty which lingered throughout the first half of the period.

The more dominant features of the first few months of 2013 included a marked improvement in market sentiment as global macroeconomic indicators improved, monetary easing by the Bank of Japan accelerated and fears of fiscal austerity in the US waned. In the middle of the period, concerns that the US Federal Reserve (Fed) would begin tapering its quantitative easing (QE) program caused sovereign bond yields to spike, credit spreads to widen, and equity valuations to fall.

Toward the end of the period, the Fed’s decision to postpone QE tapering surprised markets. Favorable market reactions were tempered, however, by tense negotiations over US fiscal policy which resulted in a 16-day partial shutdown of the federal government and a short-term extension in the debt ceiling. The volatility was short-lived, however, as an extension of budget and debt ceiling deadlines allowed the government to re-open, and subsequent economic data reflected moderate but resilient US growth. Also well-received was the decision by the European Central Bank

Management Review – continued

to cut its policy rate as inflation pressures waned in the region. In addition, equity investors appeared to have concluded that there would be no major change in US monetary policy as a result of the nomination of Janet Yellen as the new Fed Chair for a term beginning in early 2014.

Detractors from Performance

Relative to the Blended Index, yield curve ^(y) positioning in the US and Japan, particularly the fund’s greater relative exposure to shifts in the long end (centered around maturities of 10 or more years) of the US yield curve, and lesser exposure to shifts in the long end of the Japanese yield curve, detracted from performance as the curve steepened. A lesser relative exposure to government bonds outside of the US hurt performance as this segment outperformed US government bonds.

Contributors to Performance

During the reporting period, the fund’s return from yield, which was greater than that of the Blended Index, was a key contributor to relative performance.

The fund’s greater relative exposure to corporate bonds, particularly in the financial and banking sectors, was another key contributor to results.

Additionally, yield curve positioning in Europe, particularly the fund’s lesser exposure to shifts in the long end of the European yield curve, was another area of relative strength.

Respectfully,


James Calmas	Ward Brown	Matthew Ryan	Erik Weisman
Portfolio Manager	Portfolio Manager	Portfolio Manager	Portfolio Manager

(r)

Bonds rated “BBB”, “Baa”, or higher are considered investment grade; bonds rated “BB”, “Ba”, or below are considered non-investment grade. The source for bond quality ratings is Moody’s Investors Service, Standard & Poor’s and Fitch, Inc. and are applied using the following hierarchy: If all three agencies provide a rating, the middle rating (after dropping the highest and lowest ratings) is assigned; if two of the three agencies rate a security, the lower of the two is assigned. Ratings are shown in the S&P and Fitch scale (e.g., AAA). For securities which are not rated by any of the three agencies, the security is considered Not Rated.

(y)	A yield curve graphically depicts the yields of different maturity bonds of the same credit quality and type; a normal yield curve is upward sloping, with short-term rates lower than long-term rates.

Note to Shareholders: Effective December 1, 2012, Ward Brown and Matthew Ryan are also Portfolio Managers of the Fund.

The views expressed in this report are those of the portfolio managers only through the end of the period of the report as stated on the cover and do not necessarily reflect the views of MFS or any other person in the MFS organization. These views are subject to change at any time based on market or other conditions, and MFS disclaims any responsibility to update such views. These views may not be relied upon as investment advice or an indication of trading intent on behalf of any MFS portfolio. References to specific securities are not recommendations of such securities, and may not be representative of any MFS portfolio’s current or future investments.

PERFORMANCE SUMMARY THROUGH 10/31/13

The following chart represents the fund’s historical performance in comparison to its benchmark(s). Investment return and principal value will fluctuate, and shares, when sold, may be worth more or less than their original cost; current performance may be lower or higher than quoted. The performance shown does not reflect the deduction of taxes, if any, that a shareholder would pay on fund distributions or the sale of fund shares. Performance data shown represents past performance and is no guarantee of future results.

Price Summary for MFS Intermediate Income Trust

Year Ended 10/31/13


	Date			Price
Net Asset Value		10/31/13		$5.76
		10/31/12		$6.25
New York Stock Exchange Price		10/31/13		$5.28
		12/21/12	(high) (t)	$6.72
		9/17/13	(low) (t)	$5.14
		10/31/12		$6.53

Total Returns vs Benchmarks

Year Ended 10/31/13



		MFS Intermediate Income Trust at

		New York Stock Exchange Price (r)		(11.67)%

		Net Asset Value (r)		0.67%

		Barclays Intermediate U.S. Government/Credit Bond Index (f)(y)		(0.03)%

		Barclays Intermediate U.S. Government Bond Index (f)(y)		(0.27)%

		MFS Intermediate Income Trust Blended Index – Current (f)(w)(y)		0.70%

		MFS Intermediate Income Trust Blended Index – Prior (f)(x)(y)		0.52%

		JPMorgan Global Government Bond Index ex U.S. (Hedged) (f)		2.92%

(f)	Source: FactSet Research Systems Inc.

(r)	Includes reinvestment of dividends and capital gain distributions.

(t)	For the period November 1, 2012 through October 31, 2013

Performance Summary – continued

(w)

MFS Intermediate Income Trust Blended Index – Current is at a point in time and allocations during the period can change. As of October 31, 2013, the blended index was comprised of 75% Barclays Intermediate U.S. Government/Credit Bond Index and 25% of the JPMorgan Global Government Bond Index ex U.S. (Hedged).

(x)

MFS Intermediate Income Trust Blended Index – Prior is at a point in time and allocations during the period can change. As of October 31, 2013, the blended index was comprised of 75% Barclays Intermediate U.S. Government Bond Index and 25% of the JPMorgan Global Government Bond Index ex U.S. (Hedged).

(y)

Effective April 1, 2013, the Barclays Intermediate U.S. Government/Credit Bond Index replaced the Barclays Intermediate U.S. Government Bond Index as the primary fund benchmark and the MFS Intermediate Income Trust Blended Index – Current replaced the MFS Intermediate Income Trust Blended Index – Prior as the fund’s other benchmark. The fund’s investment adviser believes the new benchmarks better reflect the investment policies and strategies of the fund better reflects the investment policies and strategies of the fund.

Benchmark Definitions

Barclays Intermediate U.S. Government/Credit Bond Index – a market capitalization-weighted index that measures the performance of investment grade debt obligations of the U.S. Treasury and U.S. government agencies, as well as U.S. corporate and foreign debentures and secured notes, with maturity from 1 year up to (but not including) 10 years.

Barclays Intermediate U.S. Government Bond Index – a market capitalization-weighted index that measures the performance of investment grade debt obligations of the U.S. Treasury and U.S. government agencies, as well as quasi-federal corporations and corporate or foreign debt guaranteed by the U.S. Government, with maturity from 1 year up to (but not including) 10 years.

JPMorgan Global Government Bond Index ex U.S. (Hedged) – measures the currency-hedged performance of developed government bond markets around the world, excluding the U.S.

It is not possible to invest directly in an index.

Notes to Performance Summary

The fund’s shares may trade at a discount or premium to net asset value. Shareholders do not have the right to cause the fund to repurchase their shares at net asset value. When fund shares trade at a premium, buyers pay more than the net asset value underlying fund shares, and shares purchased at a premium would receive less than the amount paid for them in the event of the fund’s liquidation. As a result, the total return that is calculated based on the net asset value and New York Stock Exchange price can be different.

The fund’s monthly distributions may include a return of capital to shareholders to the extent that the fund’s net investment income and net capital gains are insufficient to meet the fund’s target annual distribution rate. Distributions that are treated for federal income tax purposes as a return of capital will reduce each shareholder’s basis in his or her shares and, to the extent the return of capital exceeds such basis, will be treated as gain to the shareholder from a sale of shares. It may also result in a recharacterization of what economically represents a return of capital to ordinary income in those situations where a fund has long term capital gains and a capital loss carryforward. Returns of shareholder capital have the effect of reducing the fund’s assets and increasing the fund’s expense ratio.

Performance Summary – continued

The fund’s target annual distribution rate is calculated based on an annual rate of 8.5% of the fund’s average monthly net asset value, not a fixed share price, and the fund’s dividend amount will fluctuate with changes in the fund’s average monthly net assets.

Net asset values and performance results based on net asset value per share do not include adjustments made for financial reporting purposes in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles and may differ from amounts reported in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities or the Financial Highlights.

From time to time the fund may receive proceeds from litigation settlements, without which performance would be lower.

In accordance with Section 23(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, the fund hereby gives notice that it may from time to time repurchase shares of the fund in the open market at the option of the Board of Trustees and on such terms as the Trustees shall determine.

PORTFOLIO MANAGERS’ PROFILES


James Calmas	—	Lead and Investments Grade Debt Instruments Portfolio Manager; Portfolio Manager of the Fund since 2002; employed in the investment management area of MFS since 1988.

Ward Brown	—	Emerging Markets Debt Instruments Portfolio Manager; Portfolio Manager of the Fund since December 2012; employed in the investment management area of MFS since 2005.

Matthew Ryan	—	Emerging Markets Debt Instruments Portfolio Manager; Portfolio Manager of the Fund since December 2012; employed in the investment management area of MFS since 1997.

Erik Weisman	—	Portfolio Manager of the Fund since 2004; employed in the investment management area of MFS since 2002.

All Portfolio Managers are also Investment Officers of MFS.

DIVIDEND REINVESTMENT AND CASH PURCHASE PLAN

The fund offers a Dividend Reinvestment and Cash Purchase Plan (the “Plan”) that allows common shareholders to reinvest either all of the distributions paid by the fund or only the long-term capital gains. Generally, purchases are made at the market price unless that price exceeds the net asset value (the shares are trading at a premium). If the shares are trading at a premium, purchases will be made at a price of either the net asset value or 95% of the market price, whichever is greater. You can also buy shares on a quarterly basis in any amount $100 and over. The Plan Agent will purchase shares under the Cash Purchase Plan on the 15th of January, April, July, and October or shortly thereafter.

If shares are registered in your own name, new shareholders will automatically participate in the Plan, unless you have indicated that you do not wish to participate. If your shares are in the name of a brokerage firm, bank, or other nominee, you can ask the firm or nominee to participate in the Plan on your behalf. If the nominee does not offer the Plan, you may wish to request that your shares be re-registered in your own name so that you can participate. There is no service charge to reinvest distributions, nor are there brokerage charges for shares issued directly by the fund. However, when shares are bought on the New York Stock Exchange or otherwise on the open market, each participant pays a pro rata share of the transaction expenses, including commissions. Dividends and capital gains distributions are taxable whether received in cash or reinvested in additional shares – the automatic reinvestment of distributions does not relieve you of any income tax that may be payable (or required to be withheld) on the distributions.

You may withdraw from the Plan at any time by going to the Plan Agent’s website at www.computershare.com, by calling 1-800-637-2304 any business day from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern time or by writing to the Plan Agent at P.O. Box 43078, Providence, RI 02940-3078. Please have available the name of the fund and your account number. For certain types of registrations, such as corporate accounts, instructions must be submitted in writing. Please call for additional details. When you withdraw from the Plan, you can receive the value of the reinvested shares in one of three ways: your full shares will be held in your account, the Plan Agent will sell your shares and send the proceeds to you, or you may transfer your full shares to your investment professional who can hold or sell them. Additionally, the Plan Agent will sell your fractional shares and send the proceeds to you.

If you have any questions or for further information or a copy of the Plan, contact the Plan Agent Computershare Trust Company, N.A. (the Transfer Agent for the fund) at 1-800-637-2304, at the Plan Agent’s website at www.computershare.com, or by writing to the Plan Agent at P.O. Box 43078, Providence, RI 02940-3078.

PORTFOLIO OF INVESTMENTS

10/31/13

The Portfolio of Investments is a complete list of all securities owned by your fund. It is categorized by broad-based asset classes.


Bonds - 99.1%
Issuer	Shares/Par		Value ($)
Asset-Backed & Securitized - 3.8%
Anthracite Ltd., “A”, CDO, FRN, 0.53%, 2019 (n)	$	135,220	$	134,641
ARI Fleet Lease Trust, “A”, FRN, 0.724%, 2020 (n)		285,520		286,116
Chesapeake Funding LLC, “A”, FRN, 0.924%, 2023 (n)		2,946,049		2,953,385
Commercial Mortgage Acceptance Corp., FRN, 1.986%, 2030 (i)		2,631,257		125,935
Credit Suisse Commercial Mortgage Trust, “A4”, FRN, 5.76%, 2039		1,338,143		1,487,117
Credit Suisse Mortgage Capital Certificate, FRN, 5.695%, 2040		2,000,000		2,233,662
CWCapital Cobalt Ltd., “A4”, FRN, 5.772%, 2046		1,396,615		1,561,902
Falcon Franchise Loan LLC, FRN, 8.291%, 2023 (i)(z)		1,656,068		173,887
Goldman Sachs Mortgage Securities Corp. II, 5.587%, 2038		1,796,931		1,842,034
Hertz Vehicle Financing LLC, 2010-1A, “A1”, 2.6%, 2015 (n)		420,000		421,617
HLSS Servicer Advance Receivables Trust, 2013-T1, “A2”, 1.495%, 2046 (n)		2,080,000		2,067,104
JPMorgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp., 5.42%, 2049		2,065,000		2,289,534
JPMorgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp., FRN, 5.475%, 2043		2,880,827		3,132,269
Kingsland III Ltd., “A1”, CDO, FRN, 0.477%, 2021 (n)		1,548,166		1,532,048
Lehman Brothers/UBS Commercial Mortgage Trust, 5.642%, 2032		1,005,768		1,033,065
Smart Trust, “A2B”, FRN, 0.424%, 2015		2,500,000		2,495,772
Wachovia Bank Commercial Mortgage Trust, 5.418%, 2045		1,814,185		1,942,789

			$	25,712,877
Automotive - 3.6%
American Honda Finance Corp., 1.6%, 2018 (n)	$	3,000,000	$	2,970,348
American Honda Finance Corp., FRN, 0.637%, 2016 (n)		2,000,000		2,002,322
American Honda Finance Corp., FRN, 0.743%, 2016		790,000		792,970
Daimler Finance North America LLC, 1.875%, 2018 (n)		3,640,000		3,620,198
Ford Motor Credit Co. LLC, 4.207%, 2016		1,970,000		2,102,603
Harley-Davidson Financial Services, 3.875%, 2016 (n)		2,880,000		3,057,659
Hyundai Capital America, 1.875%, 2016 (n)		1,590,000		1,603,633
Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp., FRN, 0.95%, 2016 (n)		2,520,000		2,523,888
Toyota Motor Credit Corp., 3.2%, 2015		2,740,000		2,859,543
Volkswagen International Finance N.V., FRN, 1%, 2014 (n)		2,740,000		2,746,768

			$	24,279,932

Portfolio of Investments – continued


Issuer	Shares/Par		Value ($)
Bonds - continued
Banks & Diversified Financials (Covered Bonds) - 1.1%
Australia & New Zealand Banking Group, FRN, 0.852%, 2015 (n)	$	1,150,000	$	1,158,193
BNP Paribas Home Loan, 2.2%, 2015 (n)		2,640,000		2,712,336
Hypothekenbank Frankfurt AG, 5.125%, 2016		3,140,000		3,300,894

			$	7,171,423
Broadcasting - 0.4%
CBS Corp., 5.75%, 2020	$	940,000	$	1,065,502
Myriad International Holdings B.V., 6.375%, 2017 (n)		454,000		498,265
WPP Finance, 8%, 2014		812,000		860,671

			$	2,424,438
Brokerage & Asset Managers - 0.7%
Blackstone Holdings Finance Co. LLC, 4.75%, 2023 (n)	$	2,160,000	$	2,285,563
Franklin Resources, Inc., 1.375%, 2017		588,000		580,863
TD Ameritrade Holding Co., 4.15%, 2014		2,007,000		2,082,210

			$	4,948,636
Building - 0.4%
CRH PLC, 8.125%, 2018	$	1,160,000	$	1,418,954
Owens Corning, Inc., 4.2%, 2022		1,144,000		1,135,977

			$	2,554,931
Business Services - 0.0%
Cielo S.A., 3.75%, 2022 (n)	$	200,000	$	179,500

Cable TV - 1.4%
Cox Communications, Inc., 3.25%, 2022 (n)	$	2,925,000	$	2,686,393
DIRECTV Holdings LLC, 5.875%, 2019		1,400,000		1,584,654
NBCUniversal Enterprise, Inc., 1.974%, 2019 (n)		2,831,000		2,792,450
Time Warner Cable, Inc., 4%, 2021		2,770,000		2,602,027

			$	9,665,524
Chemicals - 0.8%
Dow Chemical Co., 8.55%, 2019	$	3,190,000	$	4,128,791
Sociedad Quimica y Minera de Chile S.A., 6.125%, 2016		1,463,000		1,578,896

			$	5,707,687
Computer Software - 0.3%
Adobe Systems, Inc., 3.25%, 2015	$	1,950,000	$	2,009,814

Computer Software - Systems - 0.5%
Apple, Inc., FRN, 0.515%, 2018	$	2,390,000	$	2,382,579
Seagate HDD Cayman, 3.75%, 2018 (z)		751,000		751,000

			$	3,133,579

Portfolio of Investments – continued


Issuer	Shares/Par		Value ($)
Bonds - continued
Conglomerates - 0.1%
ABB Treasury Center USA, Inc., 2.5%, 2016 (n)	$	655,000	$	679,100

Consumer Products - 1.0%
Avon Products, Inc., 2.375%, 2016	$	730,000	$	745,148
LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton S.A., 1.625%, 2017 (n)		1,860,000		1,868,870
Newell Rubbermaid, Inc., 2%, 2015		2,000,000		2,027,784
Newell Rubbermaid, Inc., 4.7%, 2020		1,280,000		1,368,453
Tupperware Brands Corp., 4.75%, 2021		979,000		1,009,957

			$	7,020,212
Consumer Services - 0.2%
Experian Finance PLC, 2.375%, 2017 (n)	$	1,154,000	$	1,149,391

Defense Electronics - 0.2%
BAE Systems Holdings, Inc., 6.375%, 2019 (n)	$	1,400,000	$	1,641,471

Electrical Equipment - 0.4%
Arrow Electronics, Inc., 3%, 2018	$	742,000	$	755,843
Ericsson, Inc., 4.125%, 2022		2,190,000		2,177,911

			$	2,933,754
Emerging Market Quasi-Sovereign - 5.1%
Banco do Brasil (Cayman Branch), 6%, 2020 (n)	$	1,430,000	$	1,555,125
Banco do Brasil S.A., 3.875%, 2022		200,000		182,000
Banco do Nordeste do Brasil (BNB), 3.625%, 2015 (n)		992,000		1,001,920
BNDES Participacoes S.A., 6.5%, 2019 (n)		3,267,000		3,605,951
Caixa Economica Federal, 3.5%, 2022 (n)		151,000		131,559
CNPC (HK) Overseas Capital Ltd., 4.5%, 2021 (n)		1,090,000		1,132,551
Corporacion Financiera de Desarrollo S.A., 4.75%, 2022 (n)		228,000		229,140
Corporacion Nacional del Cobre de Chile, 4.75%, 2014 (n)		1,312,000		1,358,035
Corporacion Nacional del Cobre de Chile, 3.75%, 2020 (n)		840,000		844,974
Empresa Nacional del Petroleo, 6.25%, 2019		723,000		793,620
Gaz Capital S.A., 3.85%, 2020 (n)		2,073,000		2,021,175
Gaz Capital S.A., 5.999%, 2021 (n)		2,578,000		2,752,015
Gazprom Neft, 4.375%, 2022 (n)		508,000		478,155
Korea Gas Corp., 2.25%, 2017 (n)		1,630,000		1,635,139
Petrobras International Finance Co., 5.375%, 2021		2,479,000		2,520,580
Petroleos Mexicanos, 6%, 2020		2,970,000		3,333,825
Petronas Capital Ltd., 7.875%, 2022		1,089,000		1,409,023
Ras Laffan Liquefied Natural Gas Co. Ltd., 6.75%, 2019 (n)		1,584,000		1,884,960
Rosneft, 3.149%, 2017 (n)		1,273,000		1,282,548
Rosneft, 4.199%, 2022 (n)		2,118,000		1,985,625
Sinopec Capital (2013) Ltd., 3.125%, 2023 (n)		1,466,000		1,344,621

Portfolio of Investments – continued


Issuer	Shares/Par		Value ($)
Bonds - continued
Emerging Market Quasi-Sovereign - continued
State Grid International Development Co. Ltd., 1.75%, 2018 (n)	$	1,330,000	$	1,307,579
Transnet SOC Ltd., 4.5%, 2016 (n)		212,000		220,809
VTB Capital S.A., 6.465%, 2015 (n)		857,000		905,163
VTB Capital S.A., 6%, 2017 (n)		830,000		883,950

			$	34,800,042
Emerging Market Sovereign - 1.0%
Republic of Peru, 9.875%, 2015	$	485,000	$	537,380
Republic of Poland, 5%, 2022		772,000		844,375
Republic of Slovakia, 4.375%, 2022 (n)		2,960,000		3,108,000
Russian Federation, 4.875%, 2023 (n)		800,000		839,200
United Mexican States, 3.625%, 2022		1,754,000		1,780,310

			$	7,109,265
Energy - Independent - 0.3%
Hess Corp., 8.125%, 2019	$	1,230,000	$	1,549,820
Petrohawk Energy Corp., 7.25%, 2018		178,000		192,952

			$	1,742,772
Energy - Integrated - 2.7%
BG Energy Capital PLC, 2.875%, 2016 (n)	$	2,320,000	$	2,432,344
BP Capital Markets PLC, 4.5%, 2020		853,000		935,411
BP Capital Markets PLC, 4.742%, 2021		1,810,000		1,998,519
Husky Energy, Inc., 5.9%, 2014		2,755,000		2,842,339
LUKOIL International Finance B.V., 3.416%, 2018 (n)		1,619,000		1,631,143
LUKOIL International Finance B.V., 4.563%, 2023 (n)		2,192,000		2,096,100
Petro-Canada, 6.05%, 2018		904,000		1,058,693
Petro-Canada Financial Partnership, 5%, 2014		2,140,000		2,231,922
Total Capital International S.A., 1.5%, 2017		1,000,000		1,013,476
TOTAL S.A., 3%, 2015		1,860,000		1,935,756

			$	18,175,703
Financial Institutions - 1.2%
General Electric Capital Corp., 6%, 2019	$	1,180,000	$	1,396,523
General Electric Capital Corp., 3.15%, 2022		2,000,000		1,958,556
General Electric Capital Corp., 3.1%, 2023		1,102,000		1,062,296
LeasePlan Corp. N.V., 3%, 2017 (n)		1,970,000		1,996,398
LeasePlan Corp. N.V., 2.5%, 2018 (n)		466,000		459,288
NYSE Euronext, 2%, 2017		1,558,000		1,566,136

			$	8,439,197
Food & Beverages - 3.5%
Anheuser-Busch InBev S.A., 7.75%, 2019	$	2,780,000	$	3,520,650
BRF S.A., 3.95%, 2023 (n)		2,115,000		1,903,500

Portfolio of Investments – continued


Issuer	Shares/Par		Value ($)
Bonds - continued
Food & Beverages - continued
Coca-Cola Icecek Uretim, 4.75%, 2018 (n)	$	2,402,000	$	2,494,237
Conagra Foods, Inc., 5.875%, 2014		2,240,000		2,292,588
Conagra Foods, Inc., 1.3%, 2016		1,680,000		1,685,645
Diageo Capital PLC, 7.375%, 2014		2,200,000		2,229,537
Diageo Capital PLC, 1.5%, 2017		1,530,000		1,537,805
Grupo Bimbo S.A.B. de C.V., 4.5%, 2022 (n)		290,000		296,115
Kraft Foods Group, Inc., 6.125%, 2018		1,310,000		1,547,477
Mead Johnson Nutrition Co., “A”, 4.9%, 2019		611,000		677,348
Mondelez International, Inc., 6.75%, 2014		1,390,000		1,414,713
Tyson Foods, Inc., 4.5%, 2022		1,447,000		1,500,772
Want Want China Finance Co., 1.875%, 2018 (z)		290,000		279,500
Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co., 2.4%, 2018 (n)		613,000		619,467
Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co., 3.375%, 2020 (n)		1,876,000		1,915,771

			$	23,915,125
Food & Drug Stores - 0.2%
CVS Caremark Corp., 3.25%, 2015	$	1,096,000	$	1,139,189

Forest & Paper Products - 0.3%
Georgia-Pacific LLC, 3.734%, 2023 (n)	$	2,312,000	$	2,284,194

Gaming & Lodging - 0.2%
Wyndham Worldwide Corp., 2.95%, 2017	$	1,686,000	$	1,728,450

Industrial - 0.9%
Johns Hopkins University, 5.25%, 2019	$	2,175,000	$	2,517,004
Princeton University, 4.95%, 2019		2,860,000		3,297,554

			$	5,814,558
Insurance - 2.6%
American International Group, Inc., 3%, 2015	$	3,680,000	$	3,786,006
American International Group, Inc., 5.85%, 2018		395,000		455,902
American International Group, Inc., 3.375%, 2020		1,750,000		1,780,793
ING U.S., Inc., 2.9%, 2018		1,141,000		1,164,460
Lincoln National Corp., 4.3%, 2015		1,360,000		1,430,479
MetLife, Inc., 1.756%, 2017		575,000		576,025
Metropolitan Life Global Funding I, 5.125%, 2014 (n)		1,020,000		1,048,604
Principal Financial Group, Inc., 8.875%, 2019		2,230,000		2,919,170
Prudential Financial, Inc., 6.2%, 2015		2,210,000		2,351,630
UnumProvident Corp., 6.85%, 2015 (n)		1,740,000		1,921,644

			$	17,434,713
Insurance - Health - 0.2%
Wellpoint, Inc., 1.25%, 2015	$	1,220,000	$	1,230,332

Portfolio of Investments – continued


Issuer	Shares/Par		Value ($)
Bonds - continued
Insurance - Property & Casualty - 2.1%
ACE Ltd., 2.6%, 2015	$	2,000,000	$	2,073,582
Aon Corp., 3.5%, 2015		2,750,000		2,880,991
AXIS Capital Holdings Ltd., 5.875%, 2020		1,610,000		1,798,336
Liberty Mutual Group, Inc., 4.95%, 2022 (n)		2,197,000		2,322,743
PartnerRe Ltd., 5.5%, 2020		2,120,000		2,356,395
ZFS Finance USA Trust V, 6.5% to 2017, FRN to 2067 (n)		3,000,000		3,183,750

			$	14,615,797
International Market Quasi-Sovereign - 2.8%
Bank Nederlandse Gemeenten N.V., 1.375%, 2018 (n)	$	1,746,000	$	1,733,080
Eksportfinans A.S.A., 1.6%, 2014	JPY	350,000,000		3,525,614
Electricite de France PLC, 5.5%, 2014 (n)	$	3,475,000		3,514,024
Societe Financement de l’ Economie Francaise, 3.375%, 2014 (n)		2,315,000		2,351,220
Statoil A.S.A., 1.8%, 2016		1,420,000		1,457,227
Statoil A.S.A., FRN, 0.554%, 2018		2,887,000		2,880,585
Swedish Export Credit Corp., FRN, 1.014%, 2014		3,300,000		3,318,817

			$	18,780,567
International Market Sovereign - 12.3%
Commonwealth of Australia, 5.75%, 2021	AUD	916,000	$	977,484
Federal Republic of Germany, 4.25%, 2018	EUR	2,608,000		4,145,284
Government of Canada, 4.5%, 2015	CAD	1,980,000		2,000,870
Government of Canada, 4.25%, 2018	CAD	1,532,000		1,636,514
Government of Canada, 5.75%, 2033	CAD	358,000		488,331
Government of Japan, 1.1%, 2020	JPY	800,000,000		8,554,598
Government of Japan, 0.8%, 2023	JPY	340,000,000		3,528,829
Kingdom of Belgium, 5.5%, 2017	EUR	2,494,000		3,985,690
Kingdom of Denmark, 3%, 2021	DKK	5,323,000		1,084,496
Kingdom of Spain, 4.6%, 2019	EUR	4,110,000		6,050,773
Kingdom of Sweden, 5%, 2020	SEK	3,830,000		709,626
Kingdom of the Netherlands, 4%, 2016	EUR	2,000,000		2,979,266
Republic of Austria, 4.65%, 2018	EUR	4,138,000		6,524,609
Republic of France, 5%, 2016	EUR	9,214,000		14,190,035
Republic of Iceland, 4.875%, 2016 (n)	$	2,179,000		2,274,331
Republic of Iceland, 5.875%, 2022 (n)		336,000		350,426
Republic of Ireland, 4.5%, 2020	EUR	412,000		603,361
Republic of Italy, 5.25%, 2017	EUR	11,388,000		16,992,792
Republic of Italy, 3.75%, 2021	EUR	550,000		762,906
United Kingdom Treasury, 8%, 2021	GBP	2,500,000		5,645,609

			$	83,485,830
Internet - 0.3%
Baidu, Inc., 3.25%, 2018	$	1,709,000	$	1,745,940

Portfolio of Investments – continued


Issuer	Shares/Par		Value ($)
Bonds - continued
Local Authorities - 1.2%
Louisiana Gas & Fuels Tax Rev. (Build America Bonds), FRN, 3%, 2043	$	2,780,000	$	2,791,120
Province of Ontario, 4.75%, 2016		3,000,000		3,271,500
State of Illinois, 4.961%, 2016		1,795,000		1,902,772

			$	7,965,392
Machinery & Tools - 0.1%
Atlas Copco AB, 5.6%, 2017 (n)	$	510,000	$	574,785

Major Banks - 11.5%
ABN AMRO Bank N.V., 4.25%, 2017 (n)	$	1,997,000	$	2,149,151
ABN AMRO Bank N.V., FRN, 2.005%, 2014 (n)		3,010,000		3,020,670
Bank of America Corp., 7.375%, 2014		200,000		207,058
Bank of America Corp., 1.5%, 2015		1,780,000		1,795,340
Bank of America Corp., 0.534%, 2016		2,200,000		2,162,189
Bank of America Corp., 6.5%, 2016		1,420,000		1,613,224
Bank of America Corp., 3.3%, 2023		1,335,000		1,281,276
Barclays Bank PLC, 5.125%, 2020		2,760,000		3,109,237
BNP Paribas, 2.7%, 2018		1,200,000		1,228,722
Commonwealth Bank of Australia, 5%, 2019 (n)		2,560,000		2,893,189
Credit Suisse Group AG, 6.5%, 2023 (n)		2,480,000		2,647,152
DBS Bank Ltd., 2.35%, 2017 (n)		2,430,000		2,489,345
DNB Bank A.S.A., 3.2%, 2017 (n)		2,220,000		2,331,444
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., 5.75%, 2022		3,044,000		3,451,835
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., FRN, 1.435%, 2018		1,240,000		1,245,492
HSBC USA, Inc., 4.875%, 2020		3,370,000		3,673,037
ING Bank N.V., 5.8%, 2023 (n)		2,912,000		3,053,998
ING Bank N.V., FRN, 1.658%, 2014 (n)		4,650,000		4,681,606
JPMorgan Chase & Co., 4.625%, 2021		2,890,000		3,132,312
JPMorgan Chase & Co., FRN, 1.038%, 2014		1,300,000		1,302,579
Kookmin Bank, 7.25%, 2014 (n)		2,100,000		2,169,258
Macquarie Bank Ltd., 5%, 2017 (n)		918,000		1,006,679
Macquarie Group Ltd., 6%, 2020 (n)		1,971,000		2,167,883
Morgan Stanley, 6%, 2014		2,330,000		2,395,175
Morgan Stanley, 6.625%, 2018		1,532,000		1,796,757
Morgan Stanley, 5.625%, 2019		640,000		730,304
Morgan Stanley, FRN, 1.512%, 2016		1,900,000		1,919,937
National Australia Bank Ltd., 2%, 2015		2,920,000		2,977,930
Nordea Bank AB, FRN, 0.724%, 2016 (n)		1,492,000		1,496,495
Royal Bank of Canada, FRN, 0.713%, 2016		3,000,000		3,009,357
Royal Bank of Scotland PLC, 2.55%, 2015		996,000		1,020,083
Santander U.S. Debt S.A.U., 3.724%, 2015 (n)		1,000,000		1,013,291
Standard Chartered PLC, 3.85%, 2015 (n)		2,320,000		2,412,127

Portfolio of Investments – continued


Issuer	Shares/Par		Value ($)
Bonds - continued
Major Banks - continued
Wells Fargo & Co., 3.75%, 2014	$	2,900,000	$	2,987,745
Wells Fargo & Co., 7.98% to 2018, FRN to 2049		1,190,000		1,341,725
Westpac Banking Corp., 2%, 2017		2,320,000		2,361,458

			$	78,275,060

Medical & Health Technology & Services - 0.8%
Covidien International Finance S.A., 1.35%, 2015	$	2,000,000	$	2,018,742
Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc., 2.25%, 2016		3,650,000		3,732,574

			$	5,751,316
Metals & Mining - 1.4%
Barrick Gold Corp., 4.1%, 2023	$	2,731,000	$	2,477,012
Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold, Inc., 2.375%, 2018		1,090,000		1,087,026
Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold, Inc., 3.1%, 2020		1,740,000		1,679,023
Glencore Funding LLC, FRN, 1.422%, 2016 (n)		1,960,000		1,950,208
Vale Overseas Ltd., 5.625%, 2019		492,000		539,543
Vale Overseas Ltd., 4.625%, 2020		1,561,000		1,615,808

			$	9,348,620
Mortgage-Backed - 4.5%
Fannie Mae, 4.523%, 2014	$	1,631,364	$	1,627,360
Fannie Mae, 4.822%, 2014		2,753,474		2,780,732
Fannie Mae, 5.392%, 2014		1,466,100		1,485,124
Fannie Mae, 4.62%, 2015		853,409		877,941
Fannie Mae, 4.908%, 2015		822,077		855,036
Fannie Mae, 5.395%, 2016		1,249,435		1,364,155
Fannie Mae, 5.432%, 2016		1,906,625		2,068,785
Fannie Mae, 6%, 2016		156,921		156,921
Fannie Mae, 1.114%, 2017		2,370,000		2,363,895
Fannie Mae, 5.5%, 2017 - 2025		1,634,684		1,761,910
Fannie Mae, 4.5%, 2019		1,775,781		1,887,454
Fannie Mae, 5%, 2019 - 2020		356,975		379,809
Fannie Mae, 6.5%, 2031		1,692,270		1,909,786
Freddie Mac, 3.882%, 2017		1,423,992		1,547,657
Freddie Mac, 5.5%, 2017 - 2020		1,698,330		1,805,447
Freddie Mac, 6%, 2017 - 2034		324,276		345,935
Freddie Mac, 5%, 2019		1,018,280		1,080,642
Freddie Mac, 4.224%, 2020		2,249,154		2,459,769
Ginnie Mae, 6%, 2033		696,204		778,187
Ginnie Mae, 6%, 2036 (f)		596,332		659,098
Ginnie Mae, 6.357%, 2058		2,015,887		2,135,473

			$	30,331,116

Portfolio of Investments – continued


Issuer	Shares/Par		Value ($)
Bonds - continued
Municipals - 0.3%
Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund Finance Corp. Rev, “A”, 2.107%, 2018	$	1,850,000	$	1,819,882

Natural Gas - Distribution - 0.4%
GDF Suez, 1.625%, 2017 (n)	$	2,700,000	$	2,704,158

Natural Gas - Pipeline - 2.1%
DCP Midstream LLC, 3.875%, 2023	$	1,907,000	$	1,778,798
Energy Transfer Partners LP, 8.5%, 2014		2,109,000		2,177,713
Energy Transfer Partners LP, 3.6%, 2023		3,000,000		2,862,465
Enterprise Products Operating LP, 3.7%, 2015		2,930,000		3,057,909
ONEOK Partners LP, 3.2%, 2018		1,110,000		1,148,376
TransCanada PipeLines Ltd., 3.4%, 2015		1,957,000		2,043,016
TransCanada PipeLines Ltd., FRN, 0.928%, 2016		790,000		796,059
Williams Cos., Inc., 3.7%, 2023		807,000		741,969

			$	14,606,305
Network & Telecom - 1.2%
Empresa Nacional de Telecomunicaciones S.A., 4.875%, 2024 (z)	$	659,000	$	659,089
Verizon Communications, Inc., 8.75%, 2018		689,000		888,264
Verizon Communications, Inc., 5.15%, 2023		5,820,000		6,314,630

			$	7,861,983
Oil Services - 0.3%
Noble Corp., 3.45%, 2015	$	1,030,000	$	1,071,616
Transocean, Inc., 2.5%, 2017		962,000		970,988

			$	2,042,604
Other Banks & Diversified Financials - 7.9%
American Express Credit Corp., FRN, 1.355%, 2015	$	3,970,000	$	4,029,232
Banco de Credito e Inversiones, 3%, 2017 (n)		200,000		198,763
Bancolombia S.A., 5.125%, 2022		142,000		135,610
Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd., FRN, 0.868%, 2016 (n)		2,870,000		2,879,709
Banque Federative du Credit Mutuel, FRN, 1.089%, 2016 (n)		2,490,000		2,495,105
BB&T Corp., 2.05%, 2014		2,030,000		2,045,984
Capital One Financial Corp., 2.15%, 2015		1,058,000		1,075,737
Capital One Financial Corp., FRN, 0.906%, 2015		1,160,000		1,163,228
Citigroup, Inc., 8.5%, 2019		1,960,000		2,536,003
Groupe BPCE S.A., 5.7%, 2023 (n)		2,325,000		2,384,450
Groupe BPCE S.A., 12.5% to 2019, FRN to 2049 (n)		2,556,000		3,268,485
Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A., 3.875%, 2018		1,752,000		1,787,604
Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A., FRN, 2.662%, 2014 (n)		1,540,000		1,546,514

Portfolio of Investments – continued


Issuer	Shares/Par		Value ($)
Bonds - continued
Other Banks & Diversified Financials - continued
Lloyds TSB Bank PLC, 5.8%, 2020 (n)	$	2,080,000	$	2,391,006
National Bank of Canada, 1.5%, 2015		1,760,000		1,783,888
Rabobank Nederland N.V., 3.375%, 2017		1,757,000		1,872,739
Rabobank Nederland N.V., 3.95%, 2022		2,716,000		2,654,857
Santander Holdings USA, Inc., 4.625%, 2016		450,000		482,802
Santander UK PLC, 3.875%, 2014 (n)		3,440,000		3,543,585
SunTrust Banks, Inc., 3.5%, 2017		2,237,000		2,375,421
Svenska Handelsbanken AB, 4.875%, 2014 (n)		3,060,000		3,141,023
Svenska Handelsbanken AB, FRN, 0.7%, 2016		1,250,000		1,253,898
Svenska Handelsbanken AB, FRN, 0.72%, 2016		2,940,000		2,945,909
Swedbank AB, 2.125%, 2017 (n)		1,882,000		1,904,144
Turkiye Is Bankasi A.S., 3.875%, 2017 (n)		201,000		195,734
U.S. Bancorp, 2.95%, 2022		1,316,000		1,250,379
Union Bank, FRN, 1.209%, 2014		2,500,000		2,512,528

			$	53,854,337
Personal Computers & Peripherals - 0.2%
Equifax, Inc., 3.3%, 2022	$	1,468,000	$	1,390,861

Pharmaceuticals - 1.7%
Celgene Corp., 3.95%, 2020	$	2,320,000	$	2,413,851
Hospira, Inc., 6.05%, 2017		1,060,000		1,169,554
Mylan, Inc., 1.8%, 2016 (n)		770,000		775,620
Pfizer, Inc., 6.2%, 2019		1,970,000		2,380,676
Sanofi, 1.2%, 2014		1,550,000		1,562,090
Teva Pharmaceutical Finance III, FRN, 1.166%, 2013		3,120,000		3,120,156

			$	11,421,947
Pollution Control - 0.4%
Republic Services, Inc., 5.25%, 2021	$	2,620,000	$	2,901,084

Printing & Publishing - 0.4%
Pearson Funding Five PLC, 3.25%, 2023 (n)	$	1,125,000	$	1,042,484
Pearson Funding Four PLC, 3.75%, 2022 (n)		1,458,000		1,417,230

			$	2,459,714
Real Estate - 1.7%
AvalonBay Communities, Inc., 3.625%, 2020	$	2,029,000	$	2,087,098
Boston Properties LP, REIT, 3.7%, 2018		1,476,000		1,567,577
DDR Corp., REIT, 3.375%, 2023		2,880,000		2,689,960
Health Care REIT, Inc., 2.25%, 2018		828,000		826,589
Kimco Realty Corp., REIT, 6.875%, 2019		690,000		839,070
Ventas Realty LP, 1.55%, 2016		1,000,000		1,007,176

Portfolio of Investments – continued


Issuer	Shares/Par		Value ($)
Bonds - continued
Real Estate - continued
WEA Finance LLC, 6.75%, 2019 (n)	$	2,290,000	$	2,746,926

			$	11,764,396
Retailers - 1.3%
AutoZone, Inc., 6.5%, 2014	$	2,660,000	$	2,689,635
Kohl’s Corp., 3.25%, 2023		2,282,000		2,131,751
Macy’s, Inc., 7.875%, 2015		2,670,000		2,970,997
Wesfarmers Ltd., 1.874%, 2018 (n)		1,119,000		1,108,929

			$	8,901,312
Specialty Chemicals - 0.3%
Airgas, Inc., 2.95%, 2016	$	1,900,000	$	1,974,925

Supermarkets - 0.2%
Kroger Co., 3.85%, 2023	$	1,489,000	$	1,480,158

Supranational - 0.4%
Corporacion Andina de Fomento, 4.375%, 2022	$	2,950,000	$	2,990,424

Telecommunications - Wireless - 1.6%
America Movil S.A.B. de C.V., 2.375%, 2016	$	1,007,000	$	1,032,087
American Tower Trust I, REIT, 1.551%, 2018 (n)		1,540,000		1,510,432
Crown Castle Towers LLC, 6.113%, 2020 (n)		2,934,000		3,338,757
Rogers Communications, Inc., 6.8%, 2018		1,490,000		1,791,594
Vodafone Group PLC, 5%, 2013		3,000,000		3,015,990

			$	10,688,860
Tobacco - 1.3%
Altria Group, Inc., 8.5%, 2013	$	2,700,000	$	2,702,962
Altria Group, Inc., 4%, 2024		724,000		726,716
B.A.T. International Finance PLC, 8.125%, 2013 (n)		2,250,000		2,254,608
Lorillard Tobacco Co., 8.125%, 2019		1,316,000		1,623,830
Lorillard Tobacco Co., 6.875%, 2020		1,340,000		1,562,981

			$	8,871,097
Transportation - Services - 0.2%
ERAC USA Finance Co., 2.75%, 2017 (n)	$	1,247,000	$	1,287,890

U.S. Government Agencies and Equivalents - 1.7%
Aid-Egypt, 4.45%, 2015	$	3,963,000	$	4,264,636
National Credit Union Administration Guaranteed Note, 2.9%, 2020		520,000		541,624
Small Business Administration, 6.35%, 2021		568,537		627,438
Small Business Administration, 6.34%, 2021		453,713		495,978

Portfolio of Investments – continued


Issuer	Shares/Par		Value ($)
Bonds - continued
U.S. Government Agencies and Equivalents - continued
Small Business Administration, 6.44%, 2021	$	445,461	$	493,477
Small Business Administration, 6.625%, 2021		520,424		575,730
Small Business Administration, 5.34%, 2021		1,356,262		1,474,163
Small Business Administration, 4.93%, 2024		762,218		823,914
Small Business Administration, 5.36%, 2025		1,139,189		1,242,336
Small Business Administration, 5.39%, 2025		763,596		847,918

			$	11,387,214
U.S. Treasury Obligations - 0.0%
U.S. Treasury Notes, 10.625%, 2015	$	30,000	$	35,534

Utilities - Electric Power - 5.4%
Dominion Resources, Inc., 1.95%, 2016	$	2,660,000	$	2,716,804
Duke Energy Corp., 3.35%, 2015		3,280,000		3,396,788
E.ON International Finance B.V., 5.8%, 2018 (n)		3,000,000		3,486,870
Enel Finance International S.A., 6.25%, 2017 (n)		2,240,000		2,517,290
Exelon Generation Co. LLC, 5.35%, 2014		2,300,000		2,321,178
Exelon Generation Co. LLC, 5.2%, 2019		1,340,000		1,464,956
Exelon Generation Co. LLC, 4.25%, 2022		509,000		498,437
Georgia Power Co., 6%, 2013		1,350,000		1,350,000
Iberdrola Finance Ireland Ltd., 3.8%, 2014 (n)		3,950,000		4,038,757
NextEra Energy Capital Co., 1.2%, 2015		245,000		246,616
NextEra Energy Capital Holdings, Inc., 1.339%, 2015		3,080,000		3,091,722
Oncor Electric Delivery Co., 4.1%, 2022		2,206,000		2,279,559
PPL WEM Holdings PLC, 3.9%, 2016 (n)		2,800,000		2,934,369
Progress Energy, Inc., 3.15%, 2022		3,318,000		3,242,681
Southern Co., 2.45%, 2018		2,280,000		2,320,481
Transelec S.A., 4.625%, 2023 (n)		927,000		893,965

			$	36,800,473
Total Bonds (Identified Cost, $645,809,242)			$	673,145,390

Money Market Funds - 0.1%
MFS Institutional Money Market Portfolio, 0.1%, at Cost and Net Asset Value (v)		738,527	$	738,527
Total Investments (Identified Cost, $646,547,769)			$	673,883,917

Other Assets, Less Liabilities - 0.8%				5,278,329
Net Assets - 100.0%			$	679,162,246

(f)	All or a portion of the security has been segregated as collateral for open futures contracts.

(i)	Interest only security for which the fund receives interest on notional principal (Par amount). Par amount shown is the notional principal and does not reflect the cost of the security.

Portfolio of Investments – continued

(n)

Securities exempt from registration under Rule 144A of the Securities Act of 1933. These securities may be sold in the ordinary course of business in transactions exempt from registration, normally to qualified institutional buyers. At period end, the aggregate value of these securities was $202,971,916 representing 29.9% of net assets.

(v)	Underlying affiliated fund that is available only to investment companies managed by MFS. The rate quoted for the MFS Institutional Money Market Portfolio is the annualized seven-day yield of the fund at period end.

(z)

Restricted securities are not registered under the Securities Act of 1933 and are subject to legal restrictions on resale. These securities generally may be resold in transactions exempt from registration or to the public if the securities are subsequently registered. Disposal of these securities may involve time-consuming negotiations and prompt sale at an acceptable price may be difficult. The fund holds the following restricted securities:


Restricted Securities	Acquisition Date	Cost		Value
Empresa Nacional de Telecomunicaciones S.A., 4.875%, 2024	10/24/13		$654,323		$659,089
Falcon Franchise Loan LLC, FRN, 8.291%, 2023	1/18/02		45,521		173,887
Seagate HDD Cayman, 3.75%, 2018	10/31/13		751,000		751,000
Want Want China Finance Co., 1.875%, 2018	10/09/13		277,722		279,500
Total Restricted Securities					$1,863,476
% of Net assets					0.3%

The following abbreviations are used in this report and are defined:

CDO

Collateralized Debt Obligation

FRN

Floating Rate Note. Interest rate resets periodically and may not be the rate reported at period end.

PLC

Public Limited Company

REIT

Real Estate Investment Trust

Abbreviations indicate amounts shown in currencies other than the U.S. dollar. All amounts are stated in U.S. dollars unless otherwise indicated. A list of abbreviations is shown below:

AUD

Australian Dollar

CAD

Canadian Dollar

DKK

Danish Krone

EUR

Euro

GBP

British Pound

JPY

Japanese Yen

SEK

Swedish Krona

Derivative Contracts at 10/31/13

Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts at 10/31/13

Type

Currency

Counter-

party

Contracts

Deliver/

Receive

Settlement

Date Range

Exchange

for

Contracts

at Value

Net

Unrealized

Appreciation

(Depreciation)

Asset Derivatives

SELL

AUD

Westpac Banking Corp.

1,046,933

1/17/14

$991,932

$984,706

$7,226

SELL

CAD

Merrill Lynch International Bank

4,330,670

1/17/14

4,164,979

4,145,516

19,463

Portfolio of Investments – continued

Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts at 10/31/13 - continued


Type	Currency	Counterparty	Contracts to Deliver/ Receive		Settlement Date Range		In Exchange for		Contracts at Value		Net Unrealized Appreciation (Depreciation)
Asset Derivatives - continued
BUY	EUR	Deutsche Bank AG		4,082,962		1/17/14		$5,510,101		$5,544,238		$34,137
BUY	EUR	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		4,082,962		1/17/14		5,510,889		5,544,238		33,349
SELL	JPY	Goldman Sachs International		1,490,786,595		1/17/14		15,191,646		15,168,684		22,962

												$117,137


Liability Derivatives
SELL	DKK	Deutsche Bank AG		5,910,342		1/17/14		$1,070,327		$1,076,575		$(6,248	)
SELL	EUR	Barclays Bank PLC		24,603,977		12/18/13		32,917,415		33,408,560		(491,145	)
SELL	EUR	UBS AG		24,603,977		12/18/13		32,914,708		33,408,560		(493,852	)
SELL	GBP	Credit Suisse Group		2,215,074		1/17/14		3,536,953		3,549,654		(12,701	)
SELL	GBP	Merrill Lynch International Bank		2,215,074		1/17/14		3,539,379		3,549,654		(10,275	)
SELL	SEK	Goldman Sachs International		3,826,086		1/17/14		586,698		589,396		(2,698	)

												$(1,016,919	)

Futures Contracts Outstanding at 10/31/13


Description	Currency		Contracts		Value	Expiration Date		Unrealized Appreciation (Depreciation)
Liability Derivatives
*Interest Rate Futures*
U.S. Treasury Note 10 yr (Short)		USD		74	$9,424,594		December - 2013		$(295,581	)
U.S. Treasury Note 5 yr (Short)		USD		150	18,253,125		December - 2013		(381,384	)

									$(676,965	)

At October 31, 2013, the fund had cash collateral of $1,040,00 and other liquid securities with an aggregate value of $314,993 to cover any commitments for certain derivative contracts. Cash collateral is comprised of “Restricted cash” in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

See Notes to Financial Statements

Financial Statements

STATEMENT OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES

At 10/31/13

This statement represents your fund’s balance sheet, which details the assets and liabilities comprising the total value of the fund.


Assets
Investments-
Non-affiliated issuers, at value (identified cost, $645,809,242)	$673,145,390
Underlying affiliated funds, at cost and value	738,527
Total investments, at value (identified cost, $646,547,769)	$673,883,917
Restricted cash	1,040,000
Receivables for
Forward foreign currency exchange contracts	117,137
Daily variation margin on open futures contracts	10,391
Interest	6,458,031
Other assets	17,441
Total assets	$681,526,917
Liabilities
Payables for
Distributions	$228,394
Forward foreign currency exchange contracts	1,016,919
Investments purchased	751,000
Payable to affiliates
Investment adviser	17,208
Transfer agent and dividend disbursing costs	6,217
Payable for independent Trustees’ compensation	107,136
Accrued expenses and other liabilities	237,797
Total liabilities	$2,364,671
Net assets	$679,162,246
Net assets consist of
Paid-in capital	$694,284,919
Unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on investments and translation of assets and liabilities in foreign currencies	25,773,293
Accumulated net realized gain (loss) on investments and foreign currency	(38,188,388	)
Accumulated distributions in excess of net investment income	(2,707,578	)
Net assets	$679,162,246
Shares of beneficial interest outstanding	117,925,635
Net asset value per share (net assets of $679,162,246 / 117,925,635 shares of beneficial interest outstanding)	$5.76

See Notes to Financial Statements

Financial Statements

STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS

Year ended 10/31/13

This statement describes how much your fund earned in investment income and accrued in expenses. It also describes any gains and/or losses generated by fund operations.


Net investment income
Income
Interest	$25,863,625
Dividends from underlying affiliated funds	15,609
Total investment income	$25,879,234
Expenses
Management fee	$3,843,216
Transfer agent and dividend disbursing costs	117,734
Administrative services fee	98,740
Independent Trustees’ compensation	107,970
Stock exchange fee	103,809
Custodian fee	85,467
Shareholder communications	341,616
Audit and tax fees	77,040
Legal fees	7,945
Miscellaneous	40,353
Total expenses	$4,823,890
Fees paid indirectly	(319	)
Reduction of expenses by investment adviser	(1,828	)
Net expenses	$4,821,743
Net investment income	$21,057,491
Realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments and foreign currency
Realized gain (loss) (identified cost basis)
Investments	$3,617,563
Futures contracts	(535,019	)
Foreign currency	3,776,798
Net realized gain (loss) on investments and foreign currency	$6,859,342
Change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation)
Investments	$(23,577,444	)
Futures contracts	(672,023	)
Translation of assets and liabilities in foreign currencies	(999,224	)
Net unrealized gain (loss) on investments and foreign currency translation	$(25,248,691	)
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments and foreign currency	$(18,389,349	)
Change in net assets from operations	$2,668,142

See Notes to Financial Statements

Financial Statements

STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN NET ASSETS

These statements describe the increases and/or decreases in net assets resulting from operations, any distributions, and any shareholder transactions.


	Years ended 10/31
	2013			2012
Change in net assets
From operations
Net investment income		$21,057,491			$24,310,626
Net realized gain (loss) on investments and foreign currency		6,859,342			19,184,257
Net unrealized gain (loss) on investments and foreign currency translation		(25,248,691	)		5,127,142
Change in net assets from operations		$2,668,142			$48,622,025
Distributions declared to shareholders
From net investment income		$(21,363,994	)		$(35,172,227	)
From tax return of capital		(39,051,679	)		(27,492,468	)
Total distributions declared to shareholders		$(60,415,673	)		$(62,664,695	)
Change in net assets from fund share transactions		$1,800,091			$3,613,239
Total change in net assets		$(55,947,440	)		$(10,429,431	)
Net assets
At beginning of period		735,109,686			745,539,117
At end of period (including accumulated distributions in excess of net investment income of $2,707,578 and $7,532,114, respectively)		$679,162,246			$735,109,686

See Notes to Financial Statements

Financial Statements

FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS

The financial highlights table is intended to help you understand the fund’s financial performance for the past 5 years. Certain information reflects financial results for a single fund share. The total returns in the table represent the rate by which an investor would have earned (or lost) on an investment in the fund share class (assuming reinvestment of all distributions) held for the entire period.


	Years ended 10/31
	2013			2012			2011			2010			2009
Net asset value, beginning of period		$6.25			$6.37			$6.82			$6.87			$6.55
Income (loss) from investment operations
Net investment income (d)		$0.18			$0.21			$0.22			$0.26			$0.26
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments and foreign currency		(0.16	)		0.20			(0.11	)		0.27			0.63
Total from investment operations		$0.02			$0.41			$0.11			$0.53			$0.89
Less distributions declared to shareholders
From net investment income		$(0.18	)		$(0.30	)		$(0.26	)		$(0.39	)		$(0.30	)
From tax return of capital		(0.33	)		(0.23	)		(0.30	)		(0.19	)		(0.27	)
Total distributions declared to shareholders		$(0.51	)		$(0.53	)		$(0.56	)		$(0.58	)		$(0.57	)
Net asset value, end of period (x)		$5.76			$6.25			$6.37			$6.82			$6.87
Market value, end of period		$5.28			$6.53			$6.29			$6.95			$6.64
Total return at market value (%)		(11.67	)		13.01			(1.19	)		13.97			22.45
Total return at net asset value (%) (j)(r)(s)(x)		0.67			6.80			1.97			8.09			14.51
Ratios (%) (to average net assets) and Supplemental data:
Expenses before expense reductions (f)		0.68			0.71			0.71			0.74			0.79
Expenses after expense reductions (f)		0.68			0.71			0.71			0.74			0.79
Net investment income		2.99			3.30			3.45			3.76			3.89
Portfolio turnover		30			29			16			30			50
Net assets at end of period (000 omitted)		$679,162			$735,110			$745,539			$797,079			$801,220

(d)	Per share data is based on average shares outstanding.

(f)	Ratios do not reflect reductions from fees paid indirectly, if applicable.

(j)	Total return at net asset value is calculated using the net asset value of the fund, not the publicly traded price and therefore may be different than the total return at market value.

(r)	Certain expenses have been reduced without which performance would have been lower.

(s)	From time to time the fund may receive proceeds from litigation settlements, without which performance would be lower.

(x)	The net asset values per share and total returns at net asset value per share have been calculated on net assets which include adjustments made in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles required at period end for financial reporting purposes.

See Notes to Financial Statements

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(1) Business and Organization

MFS Intermediate Income Trust (the fund) is organized as a Massachusetts business trust and is registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, as a closed-end management investment company.

(2) Significant Accounting Policies

General – The preparation of financial statements in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of increases and decreases in net assets from operations during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated subsequent events occurring after the date of the fund’s Statement of Assets and Liabilities through the date that the financial statements were issued. The fund invests in foreign securities. Investments in foreign securities are vulnerable to the effects of changes in the relative values of the local currency and the U.S. dollar and to the effects of changes in each country’s legal, political, and economic environment.

In January 2013, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued Accounting Standards Update 2013-01 (“ASU 2013-01”) entitled Balance Sheet (Topic 210) – Clarifying the Scope of Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities which is intended to clarify the scope of Accounting Standards Update 2011-11 (“ASU 2011-11”), Balance Sheet (Topic 210) – Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities. Consistent with the effective date for ASU 2011-11, ASU 2013-01 is effective for annual reporting periods beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. ASU 2013-01 limits the scope of ASU 2011-11’s disclosure requirements on offsetting to financial assets and financial liabilities related to derivatives, repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements, and securities lending and securities borrowing transactions. Although still evaluating the potential impact of these two ASUs to the fund, management expects that the impact of the fund’s adoption will be limited to additional financial statement disclosures.

In June 2013, FASB issued Accounting Standards Update 2013-08 Financial Services – Investment Companies (Topic 946) – Amendments to the Scope, Measurement, and Disclosure Requirements (“ASU 2013-08”) which is effective for interim and annual reporting periods in fiscal years that begin after December 15, 2013. ASU 2013-08 sets forth a methodology for determining whether an entity should be characterized as an investment company and prescribes fair value accounting for an investment company’s non-controlling ownership interest in another investment company. FASB has determined that a fund registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 automatically meets ASU 2013-08’s criteria for an investment company. Although still evaluating the potential impacts of ASU 2013-08 to the fund, management expects that the impact of the fund’s adoption will be limited to additional financial statement disclosures.

Investment Valuations – Debt instruments and floating rate loans (other than short-term instruments), including restricted debt instruments, are generally valued at

Notes to Financial Statements – continued

an evaluated or composite bid as provided by a third-party pricing service. Short-term instruments with a maturity at issuance of 60 days or less generally are valued at amortized cost, which approximates market value. Futures contracts are generally valued at last posted settlement price as provided by a third-party pricing service on the market on which they are primarily traded. Futures contracts for which there were no trades that day for a particular position are generally valued at the closing bid quotation as provided by a third-party pricing service on the market on which such futures contracts are primarily traded. Forward foreign currency exchange contracts are generally valued at the mean of bid and asked prices for the time period interpolated from rates provided by a third-party pricing service for proximate time periods. Open-end investment companies are generally valued at net asset value per share. Securities and other assets generally valued on the basis of information from a third-party pricing service may also be valued at a broker/dealer bid quotation. Values obtained from third-party pricing services can utilize both transaction data and market information such as yield, quality, coupon rate, maturity, type of issue, trading characteristics, and other market data. The values of foreign securities and other assets and liabilities expressed in foreign currencies are converted to U.S. dollars using the mean of bid and asked prices for rates provided by a third-party pricing service.

The Board of Trustees has delegated primary responsibility for determining or causing to be determined the value of the fund’s investments (including any fair valuation) to the adviser pursuant to valuation policies and procedures approved by the Board. If the adviser determines that reliable market quotations are not readily available, investments are valued at fair value as determined in good faith by the adviser in accordance with such procedures under the oversight of the Board of Trustees. Under the fund’s valuation policies and procedures, market quotations are not considered to be readily available for most types of debt instruments and floating rate loans and many types of derivatives. These investments are generally valued at fair value based on information from third-party pricing services. In addition, investments may be valued at fair value if the adviser determines that an investment’s value has been materially affected by events occurring after the close of the exchange or market on which the investment is principally traded (such as foreign exchange or market) and prior to the determination of the fund’s net asset value, or after the halting of trading of a specific security where trading does not resume prior to the close of the exchange or market on which the security is principally traded. The adviser generally relies on third-party pricing services or other information (such as the correlation with price movements of similar securities in the same or other markets; the type, cost and investment characteristics of the security; the business and financial condition of the issuer; and trading and other market data) to assist in determining whether to fair value and at what value to fair value an investment. The value of an investment for purposes of calculating the fund’s net asset value can differ depending on the source and method used to determine value. When fair valuation is used, the value of an investment used to determine the fund’s net asset value may differ from quoted or published prices for the same investment. There can be no assurance that the fund could obtain the fair value assigned to an investment if it were to sell the investment at the same time at which the fund determines its net asset value per share.

Notes to Financial Statements – continued

Various inputs are used in determining the value of the fund’s assets or liabilities. These inputs are categorized into three broad levels. In certain cases, the inputs used to measure fair value may fall into different levels of the fair value hierarchy. In such cases, an investment’s level within the fair value hierarchy is based on the lowest level of input that is significant to the fair value measurement. The fund’s assessment of the significance of a particular input to the fair value measurement in its entirety requires judgment, and considers factors specific to the investment. Level 1 includes unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities. Level 2 includes other significant observable market-based inputs (including quoted prices for similar securities, interest rates, prepayment speed, and credit risk). Level 3 includes unobservable inputs, which may include the adviser’s own assumptions in determining the fair value of investments. Other financial instruments are derivative instruments not reflected in total investments, such as futures contracts and forward foreign currency exchange contracts. The following is a summary of the levels used as of October 31, 2013 in valuing the fund’s assets or liabilities:


Investments at Value	Level 1			Level 2			Level 3		Total
U.S. Treasury Bonds & U.S. Government Agency & Equivalents		$—			$11,422,748			$—		$11,422,748
Non-U.S. Sovereign Debt		—			147,166,128			—		147,166,128
Municipal Bonds		—			1,819,882			—		1,819,882
U.S. Corporate Bonds		—			258,775,125			—		258,775,125
Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities		—			30,331,116			—		30,331,116
Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities		—			15,822,194			—		15,822,194
Asset-Backed Securities (including CDOs)		—			9,890,683			—		9,890,683
Foreign Bonds		—			197,917,514			—		197,917,514
Mutual Funds		738,527			—			—		738,527
Total Investments		$738,527			$673,145,390			$—		$673,883,917

Other Financial Instruments
Futures Contracts		$(676,965	)		$—			$—		$(676,965	)
Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts		—			(899,782	)		—		(899,782	)

For further information regarding security characteristics, see the Portfolio of Investments.

Foreign Currency Translation – Purchases and sales of foreign investments, income, and expenses are converted into U.S. dollars based upon currency exchange rates prevailing on the respective dates of such transactions or on the reporting date for foreign denominated receivables and payables. Gains and losses attributable to foreign currency exchange rates on sales of securities are recorded for financial statement purposes as net realized gains and losses on investments. Gains and losses attributable to foreign exchange rate movements on receivables, payables, income and expenses are recorded for financial statement purposes as foreign currency transaction gains and losses. That portion of both realized and unrealized gains and losses on investments that results from fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates is not separately disclosed.

Notes to Financial Statements – continued

Derivatives – The fund uses derivatives for different purposes, primarily to increase or decrease exposure to a particular market or segment of the market, or security, to increase or decrease interest rate or currency exposure, or as alternatives to direct investments. Derivatives are used for hedging or non-hedging purposes. While hedging can reduce or eliminate losses, it can also reduce or eliminate gains. When the fund uses derivatives as an investment to increase market exposure, or for hedging purposes, gains and losses from derivative instruments may be substantially greater than the derivative’s original cost.

The derivative instruments used by the fund were futures contracts and forward foreign currency exchange contracts. The fund’s period end derivatives, as presented in the Portfolio of Investments and the associated Derivative Contract tables, generally are indicative of the volume of its derivative activity during the period.

The following table presents, by major type of derivative contract, the fair value, on a gross basis, of the asset and liability components of derivatives held by the fund at October 31, 2013 as reported in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities:


		Fair Value (a)
Risk	Derivative Contracts	Asset Derivatives		Liability Derivatives
Interest Rate	Interest Rate Futures		$—		$(676,965	)
Foreign Exchange	Forward Foreign Currency Exchange		117,137		(1,016,919	)
Total			$117,137		$(1,693,884	)

(a)	The value of futures contracts outstanding includes cumulative appreciation (depreciation) as reported in the fund’s Portfolio of Investments. Only the current day variation margin for futures contracts is separately reported within the fund’s Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

The following table presents, by major type of derivative contract, the realized gain (loss) on derivatives held by the fund for the year ended October 31, 2013 as reported in the Statement of Operations:


Risk	Futures Contracts			Foreign Currency
Interest Rate		$(535,019	)		$—
Foreign Exchange		—			3,732,316
Total		$(535,019	)		$3,732,316

The following table presents, by major type of derivative contract, the change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on derivatives held by the fund for the year ended October 31, 2013 as reported in the Statement of Operations:


Risk	Futures Contracts			Translation of Assets and Liabilities in Foreign Currencies
Interest Rate		$(672,023	)		$—
Foreign Exchange		—			(992,901	)
Total		$(672,023	)		$(992,901	)

Notes to Financial Statements – continued

Derivative counterparty credit risk is managed through formal evaluation of the creditworthiness of all potential counterparties. On certain, but not all, over-the-counter derivatives, the fund attempts to reduce its exposure to counterparty credit risk whenever possible by entering into an International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) Master Agreement on a bilateral basis with each of the counterparties with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions. The ISDA Master Agreement gives each party to the agreement the right to terminate all transactions traded under such agreement if there is a certain deterioration in the credit quality of the other party. Upon an event of default or a termination of the ISDA Master Agreement, the non-defaulting party has the right to close out all transactions traded under such agreement and to net amounts owed under each transaction to one net amount payable by one party to the other. This right to close out and net payments across all transactions traded under the ISDA Master Agreement could result in a reduction of the fund’s credit risk to such counterparty equal to any amounts payable by the fund under the applicable transactions, if any.

Collateral and margin requirements differ by type of derivative. Margin requirements are set by the broker or clearing house for cleared derivatives (i.e., futures contracts, cleared swaps, and exchange-traded options) while collateral terms are contract specific for over-the-counter traded derivatives (i.e., forward foreign currency exchange contracts, uncleared swap agreements, and over-the-counter options). For derivatives traded under an ISDA Master Agreement, the collateral requirements are netted across all transactions traded under such agreement and one amount is posted from one party to the other to collateralize such obligations. Cash that has been segregated to cover the fund’s collateral or margin obligations under derivative contracts, if any, will be reported separately in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities as “Restricted cash”. Securities pledged as collateral or margin for the same purpose, if any, are noted in the Portfolio of Investments.

The fund’s accounting policy with respect to balance sheet offsetting is that, absent an event of default by the counterparty or a termination of the agreement, the ISDA Master Agreement does not result in an offset of reported amounts of financial assets and financial liabilities in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities across transactions between the fund and the applicable counterparty.

Futures Contracts – The fund entered into futures contracts which may be used to hedge against or obtain broad market exposure, interest rate exposure, currency exposure, or to manage duration. A futures contract represents a commitment for the future purchase or sale of an asset at a specified price on a specified date.

Upon entering into a futures contract, the fund is required to deposit with the broker, either in cash or securities, an initial margin in an amount equal to a certain percentage of the notional amount of the contract. Subsequent payments (variation margin) are made or received by the fund each day, depending on the daily fluctuations in the value of the contract, and are recorded for financial statement purposes as unrealized gain or loss by the fund until the contract is closed or expires at which point the gain or loss on futures contracts is realized.

The fund bears the risk of interest rates, exchange rates or securities prices moving unexpectedly, in which case, the fund may not achieve the anticipated benefits of the

Notes to Financial Statements – continued

futures contracts and may realize a loss. While futures contracts may present less counterparty risk to the fund since the contracts are exchange traded and the exchange’s clearinghouse guarantees payments to the broker, there is still counterparty credit risk due to the insolvency of the broker. The fund’s maximum risk of loss due to counterparty credit risk is equal to the margin posted by the fund to the broker plus any gains or minus any losses on the outstanding futures contracts.

Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts – The fund entered into forward foreign currency exchange contracts for the purchase or sale of a specific foreign currency at a fixed price on a future date. These contracts may be used to hedge the fund’s currency risk or for non-hedging purposes. For hedging purposes, the fund may enter into contracts to deliver or receive foreign currency that the fund will receive from or use in its normal investment activities. The fund may also use contracts to hedge against declines in the value of foreign currency denominated securities due to unfavorable exchange rate movements. For non-hedging purposes, the fund may enter into contracts with the intent of changing the relative exposure of the fund’s portfolio of securities to different currencies to take advantage of anticipated exchange rate changes.

Forward foreign currency exchange contracts are adjusted by the daily exchange rate of the underlying currency and any unrealized gains or losses are recorded as a receivable or payable for forward foreign currency exchange contracts until the contract settlement date. On contract settlement date, any gain or loss on the contract is recorded as realized gains or losses on foreign currency.

Risks may arise upon entering into these contracts from unanticipated movements in the value of the contract and from the potential inability of counterparties to meet the terms of their contracts. Generally, the fund’s maximum risk due to counterparty credit risk is the unrealized gain on the contract due to the use of Continuous Linked Settlement, an industry accepted settlement system. This risk is mitigated in cases where there is an ISDA Master Agreement between the fund and the counterparty providing for netting as described above and for posting of collateral by the counterparty to the fund to cover the fund’s exposure to the counterparty under such ISDA Master Agreement.

Indemnifications – Under the fund’s organizational documents, its officers and Trustees may be indemnified against certain liabilities and expenses arising out of the performance of their duties to the fund. Additionally, in the normal course of business, the fund enters into agreements with service providers that may contain indemnification clauses. The fund’s maximum exposure under these agreements is unknown as this would involve future claims that may be made against the fund that have not yet occurred.

Investment Transactions and Income – Investment transactions are recorded on the trade date. Interest income is recorded on the accrual basis. All premium and discount is amortized or accreted for financial statement purposes in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. Interest payments received in additional securities are recorded on the ex-interest date in an amount equal to the value of the security on such date.

Notes to Financial Statements – continued

The fund may receive proceeds from litigation settlements. Any proceeds received from litigation involving portfolio holdings are reflected in the Statement of Operations in realized gain/loss if the security has been disposed of by the fund or in unrealized gain/loss if the security is still held by the fund. Any other proceeds from litigation not related to portfolio holdings are reflected as other income in the Statement of Operations.

Fees Paid Indirectly – The fund’s custody fee may be reduced according to an arrangement that measures the value of cash deposited with the custodian by the fund. This amount, for the year ended October 31, 2013, is shown as a reduction of total expenses in the Statement of Operations.

Tax Matters and Distributions – The fund intends to qualify as a regulated investment company, as defined under Subchapter M of the Internal Revenue Code, and to distribute all of its taxable income, including realized capital gains. As a result, no provision for federal income tax is required. The fund’s federal tax returns, when filed, will remain subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service for a three year period. Foreign taxes, if any, have been accrued by the fund in the accompanying financial statements in accordance with the applicable foreign tax law. Foreign income taxes may be withheld by certain countries in which the fund invests. Additionally, capital gains realized by the fund on securities issued in or by certain foreign countries may be subject to capital gains tax imposed by those countries.

Distributions to shareholders are recorded on the ex-dividend date. The fund seeks to pay monthly distributions based on an annual rate of 8.5% of the fund’s average monthly net asset value. As a result, distributions may exceed actual earnings which may result in a tax return of capital or, to the extent the fund has long-term gains, distributions of current year long-term gains may be recharacterized as ordinary income. Income and capital gain distributions are determined in accordance with income tax regulations, which may differ from U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. Certain capital accounts in the financial statements are periodically adjusted for permanent differences in order to reflect their tax character. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or net asset value per share. Temporary differences which arise from recognizing certain items of income, expense, gain or loss in different periods for financial statement and tax purposes will reverse at some time in the future. Distributions from other sources, in excess of net investment income or net realized gains are temporary overdistributions for financial statement purposes resulting from differences in the recognition or classification of income or distributions for financial statement and tax purposes.

Book/tax differences primarily relate to amortization and accretion of debt securities, straddle loss deferrals, and derivative transactions.

Notes to Financial Statements – continued

The tax character of distributions declared to shareholders for the last two fiscal years is as follows:


	10/31/13		10/31/12
Ordinary income (including any short-term capital gains) (a)		$21,363,994		$35,172,227
Tax return of capital (b)		39,051,679		27,492,468
Total distributions		$60,415,673		$62,664,695

(a)

Included in the fund’s distributions from ordinary income for the years ended October 31, 2013 and October 31, 2012 is $2,525,474 and $9,277,736, respectively, in excess of investment company taxable income which, in accordance with applicable U.S. tax law, is taxable to shareholders as ordinary income distributions.

(b)	Distributions in excess of tax basis earnings and profits are reported in the financial statements as a tax return of capital.

The federal tax cost and the tax basis components of distributable earnings were as follows:


As of 10/31/13
Cost of investments	$652,073,077
Gross appreciation	29,920,552
Gross depreciation	(8,109,712	)
Net unrealized appreciation (depreciation)	$21,810,840
Capital loss carryforwards	(33,184,396	)
Other temporary differences	(3,749,117	)

Under the Regulated Investment Company Modernization Act of 2010 (the “Act”), net capital losses recognized for fund fiscal years beginning after October 31, 2011 may be carried forward indefinitely, and their character is retained as short-term and/or long-term losses (“post-enactment losses”). Previously, net capital losses were carried forward for eight years and treated as short-term losses (“pre-enactment losses”). As a transition rule, the Act requires that all post-enactment net capital losses be used before pre-enactment net capital losses.

As of October 31, 2013, the fund had capital loss carryforwards available to offset future realized gains. Such pre-enactment losses expire as follows:


10/31/14	$(11,450,273	)
10/31/15	(4,950,649	)
10/31/16	(16,783,474	)
Total	$(33,184,396	)

(3) Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Adviser – The fund has an investment advisory agreement with MFS to provide overall investment management and related administrative services and facilities to the fund. The management fee is computed daily and paid monthly at an annual rate of 0.32% of the fund’s average daily net assets and 5.65% of gross income. Gross income is calculated based on tax elections that generally include the accretion of discount and exclude the amortization of premium, which may differ from investment income reported in the Statement of Operations. MFS has agreed to reduce its management fee to the lesser of the contractual management fee as set forth above

Notes to Financial Statements – continued

or 0.85% of the average daily net assets. This written agreement will continue until modified by the Board of Trustees, but such an agreement will continue at least until October 31, 2014. The management fee, from net assets and gross income, incurred for the year ended October 31, 2013 was equivalent to an annual effective rate of 0.54% of the fund’s average daily net assets.

Transfer Agent – The fund engages Computershare Trust Company, N.A. (“Computershare”) as the sole transfer agent for the fund. MFS Service Center, Inc. (MFSC) monitors and supervises the activities of Computershare for an agreed upon fee approved by the Board of Trustees. For the year ended October 31, 2013, these fees paid to MFSC amounted to $30,391.

Administrator – MFS provides certain financial, legal, shareholder communications, compliance, and other administrative services to the fund. Under an administrative services agreement, the fund partially reimburses MFS the costs incurred to provide these services. The fund is charged an annual fixed amount of $17,500 plus a fee based on average daily net assets. The administrative services fee incurred for the year ended October 31, 2013 was equivalent to an annual effective rate of 0.0140% of the fund’s average daily net assets.

Trustees’ and Officers’ Compensation – The fund pays compensation to independent Trustees in the form of a retainer, attendance fees, and additional compensation to Board and Committee chairpersons. The fund does not pay compensation directly to Trustees or officers of the fund who are also officers of the investment adviser, all of whom receive remuneration for their services to the fund from MFS. Certain officers and Trustees of the fund are officers or directors of MFS and MFSC.

Prior to December 31, 2001, the fund had an unfunded defined benefit plan (“DB plan”) for independent Trustees. As of December 31, 2001, the Board took action to terminate the DB plan with respect to then-current and any future independent Trustees, such that the DB plan covers only certain of those former independent Trustees who retired on or before December 31, 2001. Effective January 1, 2002, accrued benefits under the DB plan for then-current independent Trustees who continued were credited to an unfunded retirement deferral plan (the “Retirement Deferral plan”), which was established for and exists solely with respect to these credited amounts, and is not available for other deferrals by these or other independent Trustees. Although the Retirement Deferral plan is unfunded, amounts deferred under the plan are periodically adjusted for investment experience as if they had been invested in shares of the fund. The DB plan resulted in a pension expense of $884 and the Retirement Deferral plan resulted in an expense of $158. Both amounts are included in independent Trustees’ compensation for the year ended October 31, 2013. The liability for deferred retirement benefits payable to certain independent Trustees under both plans amounted to $106,887 at October 31, 2013, and is included in “Payable for independent Trustees’ compensation” in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

Other – This fund and certain other funds managed by MFS (the funds) have entered into services agreements (the Agreements) which provide for payment of fees by the funds to Tarantino LLC and Griffin Compliance LLC in return for the provision of services of an Independent Chief Compliance Officer (ICCO) and Assistant ICCO,

Notes to Financial Statements – continued

respectively, for the funds. The ICCO and Assistant ICCO are officers of the funds and the sole members of Tarantino LLC and Griffin Compliance LLC, respectively. The funds can terminate the Agreements with Tarantino LLC and Griffin Compliance LLC at any time under the terms of the Agreements. For the year ended October 31, 2013, the aggregate fees paid by the fund to Tarantino LLC and Griffin Compliance LLC were $4,860 and are included in “Miscellaneous” expense in the Statement of Operations. MFS has agreed to reimburse the fund for a portion of the payments made by the fund in the amount of $1,828, which is shown as a reduction of total expenses in the Statement of Operations. Additionally, MFS has agreed to bear all expenses associated with office space, other administrative support, and supplies provided to the ICCO and Assistant ICCO.

The fund invests in the MFS Institutional Money Market Portfolio which is managed by MFS and seeks current income consistent with preservation of capital and liquidity. Income earned on this investment is included in “Dividends from underlying affiliated funds” in the Statement of Operations. This money market fund does not pay a management fee to MFS.

(4) Portfolio Securities

Purchases and sales of investments, other than short-term obligations, were as follows:


	Purchases		Sales
U.S. Government securities		$—		$10,856,919
Investments (non-U.S. Government securities)		$207,550,119		$225,054,691

(5) Shares of Beneficial Interest

The fund’s Declaration of Trust permits the Trustees to issue an unlimited number of full and fractional shares of beneficial interest. The Trustees have authorized the repurchase by the fund of up to 10% annually of its own shares of beneficial interest. During the years ended October 31, 2013 and October 31, 2012, the fund did not repurchase any shares. Other transactions in fund shares were as follows:

Year ended
10/31/13

Year ended
10/31/12

Shares

Amount

Shares

Amount

Shares issued to shareholders in
reinvestment of distributions

291,664

$1,800,091

575,803

$3,613,239

(6) Line of Credit

The fund and certain other funds managed by MFS participate in a $1.1 billion unsecured committed line of credit, subject to a $1 billion sublimit, provided by a syndication of banks under a credit agreement. Borrowings may be made for temporary financing needs. Interest is charged to each fund, based on its borrowings, generally at a rate equal to the higher of the Federal Reserve funds rate or one month LIBOR plus an agreed upon spread. A commitment fee, based on the average daily, unused portion of the committed line of credit, is allocated among the participating funds at the end of each calendar quarter. In addition, the fund and other funds managed by MFS have established unsecured uncommitted borrowing arrangements with certain banks for temporary financing needs. Interest is charged to each fund, based on its borrowings, at a rate equal to the Federal Reserve funds rate plus an

Notes to Financial Statements – continued

agreed upon spread. For the year ended October 31, 2013, the fund’s commitment fee and interest expense were $3,600 and $0, respectively, and are included in “Miscellaneous” expense in the Statement of Operations.

(7) Transactions in Underlying Affiliated Funds-Affiliated Issuers

An affiliated issuer may be considered one in which the fund owns 5% or more of the outstanding voting securities, or a company which is under common control. For the purposes of this report, the fund assumes the following to be an affiliated issuer:


Underlying Affiliated Fund	Beginning Shares/Par Amount		Acquisitions Shares/Par Amount		Dispositions Shares/Par Amount			Ending Shares/Par Amount
MFS Institutional Money Market Portfolio		3,472,254		195,959,280		(198,693,007	)		738,527

Underlying Affiliated Fund	Realized Gain (Loss)		Capital Gain Distributions		Dividend Income			Ending Value
MFS Institutional Money Market Portfolio		$—		$—		$15,609			$738,527

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Board of Trustees and the Shareholders of MFS Intermediate Income Trust:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the portfolio of investments, of MFS Intermediate Income Trust (the “Fund”) as of October 31, 2013, and the related statement of operations for the year then ended, the statements of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Fund’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement. The Fund is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Fund’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of October 31, 2013, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers; where replies were not received from brokers, we performed other auditing procedures. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of MFS Intermediate Income Trust as of October 31, 2013, the results of its operations for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

December 16, 2013

RESULTS OF SHAREHOLDER MEETING

(unaudited)

At the annual meeting of shareholders of MFS Intermediate Income Trust, which was held on October 3, 2013, the following actions were taken:

Item 1: To elect the following individuals as Trustees:


	Number of Shares
Nominee	For		Withheld Authority
Maureen R. Goldfarb		76,145,152.509		2,341,943.965
Robert J. Manning		76,109,030.042		2,378,066.432
Laurie J. Thomsen		76,111,443.368		2,375,653.106

TRUSTEES AND OFFICERS — IDENTIFICATION AND BACKGROUND

The Trustees and Officers of the Trust, as of December 1, 2013, are listed below, together with their principal occupations during the past five years. (Their titles may have varied during that period.) The address of each Trustee and Officer is 111 Huntington Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02199-7618.


Name, Age	Position(s) Held with Fund	Trustee/Officer Since^(h)	Term Expiring	Principal Occupations During the Past Five Years	Other Directorships^(j)
INTERESTED TRUSTEES
Robert J. Manning^(k) (age 50)	Trustee	February 2004	2016	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Director; President (until 2009); Chief Investment Officer (until 2010)	N/A
INDEPENDENT TRUSTEES
David H. Gunning (age 71)	Trustee and Chair of Trustees	January 2004	2015	Private investor	Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. (welding equipment manufacturer), Director; Development Alternatives, Inc. (consulting), Director/Non-Executive Chairman; Portman Limited (mining), Director (until 2008)
Robert E. Butler (age 72)	Trustee	January 2006	2015	Consultant – investment company industry regulatory and compliance matters	N/A
Maureen R. Goldfarb (age 58)	Trustee	January 2009	2016	Private investor	N/A
William R. Gutow (age 72)	Trustee	December 1993	2014	Private investor and real estate consultant; Capitol Entertainment Management Company (video franchise), Vice Chairman	Texas Donuts (donut franchise), Vice Chairman (until 2010)

Trustees and Officers – continued


Name, Age	Position(s) Held with Fund	Trustee/Officer Since^(h)	Term Expiring	Principal Occupations During the Past Five Years	Other Directorships^(j)
Michael Hegarty (age 68)	Trustee	December 2004	2014	Private investor	Brookfield Office Properties, Inc. (real estate), Director; Rouse Properties Inc. (real estate), Director; Capmark Financial Group Inc. (real estate), Director
John P. Kavanaugh (age 59)	Trustee	January 2009	2014	Private investor	N/A
J. Dale Sherratt (age 75)	Trustee	June 1989	2015	Insight Resources, Inc. (acquisition planning specialists), President; Wellfleet Investments (investor in health care companies), Managing General Partner	N/A
Laurie J. Thomsen (age 56)	Trustee	March 2005	2016	Private investor; New Profit, Inc. (venture philanthropy), Executive Partner (until 2010)	The Travelers Companies (insurance), Director
Robert W. Uek (age 72)	Trustee	January 2006	2014	Consultant to investment company industry	N/A
OFFICERS
John M. Corcoran^(k) (age 48)	President	October 2008	N/A	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Senior Vice President (since October 2008); State Street Bank and Trust (financial services provider), Senior Vice President, (until 2008)	N/A
Christopher R. Bohane^(k) (age 39)	Assistant Secretary and Assistant Clerk	July 2005	N/A	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Vice President and Assistant General Counsel	N/A
Kino Clark^(k) (age 45)	Assistant Treasurer	January 2012	N/A	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Vice President	N/A

Trustees and Officers – continued


Name, Age	Position(s) Held with Fund	Trustee/Officer Since^(h)	Term Expiring	Principal Occupations During the Past Five Years	Other Directorships^(j)
Thomas H. Connors^(k) (age 54)	Assistant Secretary and Assistant Clerk	September 2012	N/A	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Vice President and Senior Counsel; Deutsche Investment Management Americas Inc. (financial service provider), Director and Senior Counsel (until 2012)	N/A
Ethan D. Corey^(k) (age -50)	Assistant Secretary and Assistant Clerk	July 2005	N/A	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Senior Vice President and Associate General Counsel	N/A
David L. DiLorenzo^(k) (age 45)	Treasurer	July 2005	N/A	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Senior Vice President	N/A
Robyn L. Griffin (age 38)	Assistant Independent Chief Compliance Officer	August 2008	N/A	Griffin Compliance LLC (provider of compliance services), Principal (since August 2008); State Street Corporation (financial services provider), Mutual Fund Administration Assistant Vice President (until 2008)	N/A
Brian E. Langenfeld^(k) (age 40)	Assistant Secretary and Assistant Clerk	June 2006	N/A	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Vice President and Senior Counsel	N/A
Susan S. Newton^(k) (age 63)	Assistant Secretary and Assistant Clerk	May 2005	N/A	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Senior Vice President and Associate General Counsel	N/A
Susan A. Pereira^(k) (age 43)	Assistant Secretary and Assistant Clerk	July 2005	N/A	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Vice President and Senior Counsel	N/A

Trustees and Officers – continued


Name, Age	Position(s) Held with Fund	Trustee/Officer Since^(h)	Term Expiring	Principal Occupations During the Past Five Years	Other Directorships^(j)
Kasey L. Phillips^(k) (age 42)	Assistant Treasurer	September 2012	N/A	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Vice President; Wells Fargo Funds Management, LLC, Senior Vice President, Fund Treasurer (until 2012)	N/A
Mark N. Polebaum^(k) (age 61)	Secretary and Clerk	January 2006	N/A	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary	N/A
Frank L. Tarantino (age 69)	Independent Chief Compliance Officer	June 2004	N/A	Tarantino LLC (provider of compliance services), Principal	N/A
Richard S. Weitzel^(k) (age 43)	Assistant Secretary and Assistant Clerk	October 2007	N/A	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Senior Vice President and Associate General Counsel	N/A
James O. Yost^(k) (age 53)	Deputy Treasurer	September 1990	N/A	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Senior Vice President	N/A

(h)

Date first appointed to serve as Trustee/officer of an MFS Fund. Each Trustee has served continuously since appointment unless indicated otherwise. For the period from December 15, 2004 until February 22, 2005, Mr. Manning served as Advisory Trustee. For the period October 2008, until January 2012, Mr. Corcoran served as Treasurer of the Funds. Prior to January 2012, Messrs. DiLorenzo and Yost served as Assistant Treasurers of the Funds.

(j)	Directorships or trusteeships of companies required to report to the Securities and Exchange Commission (i.e., “public companies”).

(k)

“Interested person” of the Trust within the meaning of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (referred to as the 1940 Act), which is the principal federal law governing investment companies like the fund, as a result of position with MFS. The address of MFS is 111 Huntington Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02199-7618.

The Trust holds annual shareholder meetings for the purpose of electing Trustees, and Trustees are elected for fixed terms. The Board of Trustees is currently divided into three classes, each having a term of three years which term expires on the date of the third annual meeting following the election to office of the Trustee’s class. Each year the term of one class expires. Each Trustee and officer will serve until next elected or his or her earlier death, resignation, retirement or removal.

Trustees and Officers – continued

Messrs. Butler, Kavanaugh, and Uek and Ms. Thomsen are members of the Fund’s Audit Committee.

Each of the Fund’s Trustees and officers holds comparable positions with certain other funds of which MFS or a subsidiary is the investment adviser or distributor, and, in the case of the officers, with certain affiliates of MFS. As of January 1, 2013, the Trustees served as board members of 143 funds within the MFS Family of Funds.

The Statement of Additional Information for the Fund includes further information about the Trustees and is available without charge upon request by calling 1-800-225-2606.


Investment Adviser		Custodian
Massachusetts Financial Services Company		State Street Bank and Trust Company
111 Huntington Avenue Boston, MA 02199-7618		1 Lincoln Street, Boston Boston, MA 02111-2900
Portfolio Managers		Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
James Calmas		Deloitte & Touche LLP
Ward Brown Matthew Ryan Erik Weisman		200 Berkeley Street Boston, MA 02116

BOARD REVIEW OF INVESTMENT ADVISORY AGREEMENT

The Investment Company Act of 1940 requires that both the full Board of Trustees and a majority of the non-interested (“independent”) Trustees, voting separately, annually approve the continuation of the Fund’s investment advisory agreement with MFS. The Trustees consider matters bearing on the Fund and its advisory arrangements at their meetings throughout the year, including a review of performance data at each regular meeting. In addition, the independent Trustees met several times over the course of three months beginning in May and ending in July, 2013 (“contract review meetings”) for the specific purpose of considering whether to approve the continuation of the investment advisory agreement for the Fund and the other investment companies that the Board oversees (the “MFS Funds”). The independent Trustees were assisted in their evaluation of the Fund’s investment advisory agreement by independent legal counsel, from whom they received separate legal advice and with whom they met separately from MFS during various contract review meetings. The independent Trustees were also assisted in this process by the MFS Funds’ Independent Chief Compliance Officer, a full-time senior officer appointed by and reporting to the independent Trustees.

In connection with their deliberations regarding the continuation of the investment advisory agreement, the Trustees, including the independent Trustees, considered such information and factors as they believed, in light of the legal advice furnished to them and their own business judgment, to be relevant. The investment advisory agreement for the Fund was considered separately, although the Trustees also took into account the common interests of all MFS Funds in their review. As described below, the Trustees considered the nature, quality, and extent of the various investment advisory, administrative, and shareholder services performed by MFS under the existing investment advisory agreement and other arrangements with the Fund.

In connection with their contract review meetings, the Trustees received and relied upon materials that included, among other items: (i) information provided by Lipper Inc., an independent third party, on the investment performance (based on net asset value) of the Fund for various time periods ended December 31, 2012 and the investment performance (based on net asset value) of a group of funds with substantially similar investment classifications/objectives (the “Lipper performance universe”), (ii) information provided by Lipper Inc. on the Fund’s advisory fees and other expenses and the advisory fees and other expenses of comparable funds identified by Lipper Inc. (the “Lipper expense group”), (iii) information provided by MFS on the advisory fees of comparable portfolios of other clients of MFS, including institutional separate accounts and other clients, (iv) information as to whether and to what extent applicable expense waivers, reimbursements or fee “breakpoints” are observed for the Fund, (v) information regarding MFS’ financial results and financial condition, including MFS’ and certain of its affiliates’ estimated profitability from services performed for the Fund and the MFS Funds as a whole, and compared to MFS’ institutional business, (vi) MFS’ views regarding the outlook for the mutual fund industry and the strategic business plans of MFS, (vii) descriptions of various functions performed by MFS for the Funds, such as compliance monitoring and portfolio trading practices, and (viii) information regarding the overall organization of MFS, including information about MFS’ senior management and other personnel providing investment

Board Review of Investment Advisory Agreement – continued

advisory, administrative and other services to the Fund and the other MFS Funds. The comparative performance, fee and expense information prepared and provided by Lipper Inc. was not independently verified and the independent Trustees did not independently verify any information provided to them by MFS.

The Trustees’ conclusion as to the continuation of the investment advisory agreement was based on a comprehensive consideration of all information provided to the Trustees and not the result of any single factor. Some of the factors that figured particularly in the Trustees’ deliberations are described below, although individual Trustees may have evaluated the information presented differently from one another, giving different weights to various factors. It is also important to recognize that the fee arrangements for the Fund and other MFS Funds are the result of years of review and discussion between the independent Trustees and MFS, that certain aspects of such arrangements may receive greater scrutiny in some years than in others, and that the Trustees’ conclusions may be based, in part, on their consideration of these same arrangements during the course of the year and in prior years.

Based on information provided by Lipper Inc. and MFS, the Trustees reviewed the Fund’s total return investment performance as well as the performance of peer groups of funds over various time periods. The Trustees placed particular emphasis on the total return performance of the Fund’s common shares in comparison to the performance of funds in its Lipper performance universe over the three-year period ended December 31, 2012, which the Trustees believed was a long enough period to reflect differing market conditions. The total return performance of the Fund’s common shares ranked 11th out of a total of 11 funds in the Lipper performance universe for this three-year period (a ranking of first place out of the total number of funds in the performance universe indicating the best performer and a ranking of last place out of the total number of funds in the performance universe indicating the worst performer). The total return performance of the Fund’s common shares ranked 9th out of a total of 12 funds for the one-year period and 7th out of a total of 10 funds for the five-year period ended December 31, 2012. Given the size of the Lipper performance universe and information previously provided by MFS regarding differences between the Fund and other funds in its Lipper performance universe, the Trustees also reviewed the Fund’s performance in comparison to a custom benchmark developed by MFS. The Fund out-performed its custom benchmark for each of the one-, three- and five-year periods ended December 31, 2012 (one-year: 7.3% total return for the Fund versus 2.6% total return for the benchmark; three-year: 5.6% total return for the Fund versus 4.3% total return for the benchmark; five-year: 6.1% total return for the Fund versus 4.6% total return for the benchmark). Because of the passage of time, these performance results may differ from the performance results for more recent periods, including those shown elsewhere in this report.

In the course of their deliberations, the Trustees took into account information provided by MFS in connection with the contract review meetings, as well as during investment review meetings conducted with portfolio management personnel during the course of the year regarding the Fund’s performance. The independent Trustees further noted that the Fund’s three-year performance as compared to its benchmark improved for the period ended December 31, 2011, as compared to the prior year. After reviewing these and related factors, the Trustees concluded, within the context of

Board Review of Investment Advisory Agreement – continued

their overall conclusions regarding the investment advisory agreement, that they were satisfied with MFS’ responses and efforts relating to investment performance.

In assessing the reasonableness of the Fund’s advisory fee, the Trustees considered, among other information, the Fund’s advisory fee and the total expense ratio of the Fund’s common shares as a percentage of average daily net assets and the advisory fee and total expense ratios of peer groups of funds based on information provided by Lipper Inc. The Trustees considered that MFS has agreed in writing to reduce its advisory fee, which may not be changed without the Trustees’ approval. The Trustees also considered that, according to the Lipper data (which takes into account any fee reductions or expense limitations that were in effect during the Fund’s last fiscal year), the Fund’s effective advisory fee rate was higher than the Lipper expense group median, and the Fund’s total expense ratio was approximately at the Lipper expense group median.

The Trustees also considered the advisory fees charged by MFS to any comparable institutional accounts. In comparing these fees, the Trustees considered information provided by MFS as to the generally broader scope of services provided by MFS to the Fund in comparison to institutional accounts and the impact on MFS and expenses associated with the more extensive regulatory regime to which the Fund is subject in comparison to institutional accounts.

The Trustees considered that, as a closed-end fund, the Fund is unlikely to experience meaningful asset growth. As a result, the Trustees did not view the potential for realization of economies of scale as the Fund’s assets grow to be a material factor in their deliberations. The Trustees noted that they would consider economies of scale in the future in the event the Fund experiences significant asset growth, such as through an offering of preferred shares (which is not currently contemplated) or a material increase in the market value of the Fund’s portfolio securities.

The Trustees also considered information prepared by MFS relating to MFS’ costs and profits with respect to the Fund, the MFS Funds considered as a group, and other investment companies and accounts advised by MFS, as well as MFS’ methodologies used to determine and allocate its costs to the MFS Funds, the Fund and other accounts and products for purposes of estimating profitability.

After reviewing these and other factors described herein, the Trustees concluded, within the context of their overall conclusions regarding the investment advisory agreement, that the advisory fees charged to the Fund represent reasonable compensation in light of the services being provided by MFS to the Fund.

In addition, the Trustees considered MFS’ resources and related efforts to continue to retain, attract and motivate capable personnel to serve the Fund. The Trustees also considered current and developing conditions in the financial services industry, including the presence of large and well-capitalized companies which are spending, and appear to be prepared to continue to spend, substantial sums to engage personnel and to provide services to competing investment companies. In this regard, the Trustees also considered the financial resources of MFS and its ultimate parent, Sun Life Financial Inc. The Trustees also considered the advantages and possible disadvantages to the Fund of having an adviser that also serves other investment companies as well as other accounts.

Board Review of Investment Advisory Agreement – continued

The Trustees also considered the nature, quality, cost, and extent of administrative services provided to the Fund by MFS under agreements other than the investment advisory agreement. The Trustees also considered the nature, extent and quality of certain other services MFS performs or arranges for on the Fund’s behalf, which may include securities lending programs, directed expense payment programs, class action recovery programs, and MFS’ interaction with third-party service providers, principally custodians and sub-custodians. The Trustees concluded that the various non-advisory services provided by MFS and its affiliates on behalf of the Fund were satisfactory.

The Trustees also considered benefits to MFS from the use of the Fund’s portfolio brokerage commissions, if applicable, to pay for investment research and various other factors. Additionally, the Trustees considered so-called “fall-out benefits” to MFS such as reputational value derived from serving as investment manager to the Fund.

Based on their evaluation of factors that they deemed to be material, including those factors described above, the Board of Trustees, including the independent Trustees, concluded that the Fund’s investment advisory agreement with MFS should be continued for an additional one-year period, commencing August 1, 2013.

A discussion regarding the Board’s most recent review and renewal of the fund’s Investment Advisory Agreement with MFS is available by clicking on the fund’s name under “Closed End Funds” in the “Products” section of the MFS Web site (mfs.com).

PROXY VOTING POLICIES AND INFORMATION

A general description of the MFS funds’ proxy voting policies and procedures is available without charge, upon request, by calling
1-800-225-2606, by visiting the Proxy Voting section of mfs.com or by visiting the SEC’s Web site at http://www.sec.gov.

Information regarding how the fund voted proxies relating to portfolio securities during the most recent twelve-month period ended June 30 is available without charge by visiting the Proxy Voting section of mfs.com or by visiting the SEC’s Web site at http://www.sec.gov.

QUARTERLY PORTFOLIO DISCLOSURE

The fund will file a complete schedule of portfolio holdings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Commission) for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year on Form N-Q. A shareholder can obtain the quarterly portfolio holdings report at mfs.com. The fund’s Form N-Q is also available on the EDGAR database on the Commission’s Internet Web site at http://www.sec.gov, and may be reviewed and copied at the:

Public Reference Room

Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F Street, NE, Room 1580

Washington, D.C. 20549

Information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling the Commission at 1-800-SEC-0330. Copies of the Fund’s Form N-Q also may be obtained, upon payment of a duplicating fee, by electronic request at the following e-mail address: publicinfo@sec.gov or by writing the Public Reference Section at the above address.

FURTHER INFORMATION

From time to time, MFS may post important information about the fund or the MFS funds on the MFS web site (mfs.com). This information is available by visiting the “News & Commentary” section of mfs.com or by clicking on the fund’s name under “Closed End Funds” in the “Products” section of mfs.com.

FEDERAL TAX INFORMATION (unaudited)

The fund will notify shareholders of amounts for use in preparing 2013 income tax forms in January 2014.

rev. 3/11

FACTS

WHAT DOES MFS DO WITH YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION?


Why?		Financial companies choose how they share your personal information. Federal law gives consumers the right to limit some but not all sharing. Federal law also requires us to tell you how we collect, share, and protect your personal information. Please read this notice carefully to understand what we do.

What?

The types of personal information we collect and share depend on the product or service you have with us. This information can include:

• Social Security number and account balances

• Account transactions and transaction history

• Checking account information and wire transfer instructions

When you are no longer our customer, we continue to share your information as described in this notice.


How?		All financial companies need to share customers’ personal information to run their everyday business. In the section below, we list the reasons financial companies can share their customers’ personal information; the reasons MFS chooses to share; and whether you can limit this sharing.


Reasons we can share your personal information	Does MFS share?	Can you limit this sharing?
For our everyday business purposes – such as to process your transactions, maintain your account(s), respond to court orders and legal investigations, or report to credit bureaus	Yes	No
For our marketing purposes – to offer our products and services to you	No	We don’t share
For joint marketing with other financial companies	No	We don’t share
For our affiliates’ everyday business purposes – information about your transactions and experiences	No	We don’t share
For our affiliates’ everyday business purposes – information about your creditworthiness	No	We don’t share
For nonaffiliates to market to you	No	We don’t share


Questions?		Call 800-225-2606 or go to mfs.com.


Page 2


Who we are
Who is providing this notice?		MFS Funds, MFS Investment Management, MFS Institutional Advisors, Inc., MFS Fund Distributors, Inc., MFS Heritage Trust Company, and MFS Service Center, Inc.


What we do
How does MFS protect my personal information?		To protect your personal information from unauthorized access and use, we use security measures that comply with federal law. These measures include procedural, electronic, and physical safeguards for the protection of the personal information we collect about you.
How does MFS collect my personal information?		We collect your personal information, for example, when you •open an account or provide account information •direct us to buy securities or direct us to sell your securities •make a wire transfer We also collect your personal information from others, such as credit bureaus, affiliates and other companies.
Why can’t I limit all sharing?		Federal law gives you the right to limit only •sharing for affiliates’ everyday business purposes – information about your creditworthiness •affiliates from using your information to market to you •sharing for nonaffiliates to market to you State laws and individual companies may give you additional rights to limit sharing.


Definitions
Affiliates		Companies related by common ownership or control. They can be financial and nonfinancial companies. •MFS does not share personal information with affiliates, except for everyday business purposes as described on page one of this notice.
Nonaffiliates		Companies not related by common ownership or control. They can be financial and nonfinancial companies. •MFS does not share with nonaffiliates so they can market to you.
Joint Marketing		A formal agreement between nonaffiliated financial companies that together market financial products or services to you. •MFS doesn’t jointly market.


Other important information
If you own an MFS product or receive an MFS service in the name of a third party such as a bank or broker-dealer, their privacy policy may apply to you instead of ours.

LOGO

CONTACT US

TRANSFER AGENT, REGISTRAR, AND

DIVIDEND DISBURSING AGENT

CALL

1-800-637-2304

9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern time

WRITE

Computershare Trust Company, N.A.

P.O. Box 43078

Providence, RI 02940-3078

New York Stock Exchange Symbol: MIN

ITEM 2.

CODE OF ETHICS.

The Registrant has adopted a Code of Ethics pursuant to Section 406 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and as defined in Form N-CSR that applies to the Registrant’s principal executive officer and principal financial and accounting officer. During the period covered by this report, the Registrant has not amended any provision in its Code of Ethics (the “Code”) that relates to an element of the Code’s definitions enumerated in paragraph (b) of Item 2 of this Form N-CSR. During the period covered by this report, the Registrant did not grant a waiver, including an implicit waiver, from any provision of the Code.

A copy of the Code of Ethics is filed as an exhibit to this Form N-CSR.

ITEM 3.

AUDIT COMMITTEE FINANCIAL EXPERT.

Messrs. Robert E. Butler, John P. Kavanaugh and Robert W. Uek and Ms. Laurie J. Thomsen, members of the Audit Committee, have been determined by the Board of Trustees in their reasonable business judgment to meet the definition of “audit committee financial expert” as such term is defined in Form N-CSR. In addition, Messrs. Butler, Kavanaugh and Uek and Ms. Thomsen are “independent” members of the Audit Committee (as such term has been defined by the Securities and Exchange Commission in regulations implementing Section 407 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002). The Securities and Exchange Commission has stated that the designation of a person as an audit committee financial expert pursuant to this Item 3 on the Form N-CSR does not impose on such a person any duties, obligations or liability that are greater than the duties, obligations or liability imposed on such person as a member of the Audit Committee and the Board of Trustees in the absence of such designation or identification.

ITEM 4.

PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT FEES AND SERVICES.

Items 4(a) through 4(d) and 4(g):

The Board of Trustees has appointed Deloitte & Touche LLP (“Deloitte”) to serve as independent accountants to the Registrant (hereinafter the “Registrant” or the “Fund”). The tables below set forth the audit fees billed to the Fund as well as fees for non-audit services provided to the Fund and/or to the Fund’s investment adviser, Massachusetts Financial Services Company (“MFS”) and to various entities either controlling, controlled by, or under common control with MFS that provide ongoing services to the Fund (“MFS Related Entities”).

For the fiscal years ended October 31, 2013 and 2012, audit fees billed to the Fund by Deloitte were as follows:


	Audit Fees
	2013		2012
Fees billed by Deloitte:
MFS Intermediate Income Trust		58,410		54,143

For the fiscal years ended October 31, 2013 and 2012, fees billed by Deloitte for audit-related, tax and other services provided to the Fund and for audit-related, tax and other services provided to MFS and MFS Related Entities were as follows:

Audit-Related Fees¹

Tax Fees²

All Other Fees³

2013

2012

2013

2012

2013

2012

Fees billed by Deloitte:

To MFS Intermediate Income Trust

10,000

6,044

5,925

1,135

1,320

Audit-Related Fees¹

Tax Fees²

All Other Fees³

2013

2012

2013

2012

2013

2012

Fees billed by Deloitte:

To MFS and MFS Related Entities of MFS Intermediate Income Trust^*

1,667,472

1,064,074


	Aggregate Fees for Non-audit Services
	2013		2012
Fees Billed by Deloitte:
To MFS Intermediate Income Trust, MFS and MFS Related Entities^#		1,699,471		1,365,159

^*	This amount reflects the fees billed to MFS and MFS Related Entities for non-audit services relating directly to the operations and financial reporting of the Fund (portions of which services also related to the operations and financial reporting of other funds within the MFS Funds complex).

#	This amount reflects the aggregate fees billed by Deloitte for non-audit services rendered to the Fund and for non-audit services rendered to MFS and the MFS Related Entities.

The fees included under “Audit-Related Fees” are fees related to assurance and related services that are reasonably related to the performance of the audit or review of financial statements, but not reported under ‘‘Audit Fees,’’ including accounting consultations, agreed-upon procedure reports, attestation reports, comfort letters and internal control reviews.

²	The fees included under “Tax Fees” are fees associated with tax compliance, tax advice and tax planning, including services relating to the filing or amendment of federal, state or local income tax returns, regulated investment company qualification reviews and tax distribution and analysis.

³	The fees included under “All Other Fees” are fees for products and services provided by Deloitte other than those reported under “Audit Fees,” “Audit-Related Fees” and “Tax Fees,” including fees for services related to review of internal controls and review of Rule 38a-1 compliance program.

Item 4(e)(1):

Set forth below are the policies and procedures established by the Audit Committee of the Board of Trustees relating to the pre-approval of audit and non-audit related services:

To the extent required by applicable law, pre-approval by the Audit Committee of the Board is needed for all audit and permissible non-audit services rendered to the Fund and all permissible non-audit services rendered to MFS or MFS Related Entities if the services relate directly to the operations and financial reporting of the Registrant. Pre-approval is

currently on an engagement-by-engagement basis. In the event pre-approval of such services is necessary between regular meetings of the Audit Committee and it is not practical to wait to seek pre-approval at the next regular meeting of the Audit Committee, pre-approval of such services may be referred to the Chair of the Audit Committee for approval; provided that the Chair may not pre-approve any individual engagement for such services exceeding $50,000 or multiple engagements for such services in the aggregate exceeding $100,000 between such regular meetings of the Audit Committee. Any engagement pre-approved by the Chair between regular meetings of the Audit Committee shall be presented for ratification by the entire Audit Committee at its next regularly scheduled meeting.

Item 4(e)(2):

None, or 0%, of the services relating to the Audit-Related Fees, Tax Fees and All Other Fees paid by the Fund and MFS and MFS Related Entities relating directly to the operations and financial reporting of the Registrant disclosed above were approved by the audit committee pursuant to paragraphs (c)(7)(i)(C) of Rule 2-01 of Regulation S-X (which permits audit committee approval after the start of the engagement with respect to services other than audit, review or attest services, if certain conditions are satisfied).

Item 4(f): Not applicable.

Item 4(h): The Registrant’s Audit Committee has considered whether the provision by a Registrant’s independent registered public accounting firm of non-audit services to MFS and MFS Related Entities that were not pre-approved by the Committee (because such services were provided prior to the effectiveness of SEC rules requiring pre-approval or because such services did not relate directly to the operations and financial reporting of the Registrant) was compatible with maintaining the independence of the independent registered public accounting firm as the Registrant’s principal auditors.

ITEM 5.

AUDIT COMMITTEE OF LISTED REGISTRANTS.

The Registrant has an Audit Committee established in accordance with Section 3(a)(58)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The members of the Audit Committee are Messrs. Robert E. Butler, John P. Kavanaugh, and Robert W. Uek and Ms. Laurie J. Thomsen.

ITEM 6.

SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS

A schedule of investments of the Registrant is included as part of the report to shareholders of the Registrant under Item 1 of this Form N-CSR.

ITEM 7.

DISCLOSURE OF PROXY VOTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR CLOSED-END MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT COMPANIES.

MASSACHUSETTS FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANY

PROXY VOTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

February 1, 2013

Massachusetts Financial Services Company, MFS Institutional Advisors, Inc., MFS International (UK) Limited, MFS Heritage Trust Company, McLean Budden Limited and MFS’ other subsidiaries that perform discretionary investment management activities (collectively, “MFS”) have adopted proxy voting policies and procedures, as set forth below (“MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures”), with respect to securities owned by the clients for which MFS serves as investment adviser and has the power to vote proxies, including the pooled investment vehicles sponsored by MFS (the “MFS Funds”). References to “clients” in these policies and procedures include the MFS Funds and other clients of MFS, such as funds organized offshore, sub-advised funds and separate account clients, to the extent these clients have delegated to MFS the responsibility to vote proxies on their behalf under the MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures.

The MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures include:

Voting Guidelines;

Administrative Procedures;

Records Retention; and

Reports.

A.	*VOTING GUIDELINES*

1.	*General Policy; Potential Conflicts of Interest*

MFS’ policy is that proxy voting decisions are made in what MFS believes to be the best long-term economic interests of MFS’ clients, and not in the interests of any other party or in MFS’ corporate interests, including interests such as the distribution of MFS Fund shares and institutional client relationships.

MFS reviews corporate governance issues and proxy voting matters that are presented for shareholder vote by either management or shareholders of public companies. Based on the overall principle that all votes cast by MFS on behalf of its clients must be in what MFS believes to be the best long-term economic interests of such clients, MFS has adopted proxy voting guidelines, set forth below, that govern how MFS generally will vote on specific matters presented for shareholder vote.

As a general matter, MFS votes consistently on similar proxy proposals across all shareholder meetings. However, some proxy proposals, such as certain excessive executive compensation, environmental, social and governance matters, are analyzed on a case-by-case basis in light of all the relevant facts and circumstances of the proposal. Therefore, MFS may vote similar proposals differently at different shareholder meetings based on the specific facts and circumstances of the issuer or the terms of the proposal. In addition, MFS also reserves the right to override the guidelines with respect to a particular proxy proposal when such an override is, in MFS’ best judgment, consistent with the overall principle of voting proxies in the best long-term economic interests of MFS’ clients.

MFS also generally votes consistently on the same matter when securities of an issuer are held by multiple client accounts, unless MFS has received explicit voting instructions to vote differently from a client for its own account. From time to time, MFS may also receive comments on the MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures from its clients. These comments are carefully considered by MFS when it reviews these guidelines and revises them as appropriate.

These policies and procedures are intended to address any potential material conflicts of interest on the part of MFS or its subsidiaries that are likely to arise in connection with the voting of proxies on behalf of MFS’ clients. If such potential material conflicts of interest do arise, MFS will analyze, document and report on such potential material conflicts of interest (see Sections B.2 and D below), and shall ultimately vote the relevant proxies in what MFS believes to be the best long-term economic interests of its clients. The MFS Proxy Voting Committee is responsible for monitoring and reporting with respect to such potential material conflicts of interest.

MFS is also a signatory to the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment. In developing these guidelines, MFS considered environmental, social and corporate governance issues in light of MFS’ fiduciary obligation to vote proxies in the best long-term economic interest of its clients.

2.	*MFS’ Policy on Specific Issues*

Election of Directors

MFS believes that good governance should be based on a board with at least a simple majority of directors who are “independent” of management, and whose key committees (e.g., compensation, nominating, and audit committees) consist entirely of “independent” directors. While MFS generally supports the board’s nominees in uncontested or non-contentious elections, we will not support a nominee to a board of a U.S. issuer (or issuer listed on a U.S. exchange) if, as a result of such nominee being elected to the board, the board would consist of a

simple majority of members who are not “independent” or, alternatively, the compensation, nominating (including instances in which the full board serves as the compensation or nominating committee) or audit committees would include members who are not “independent.”

MFS will also not support a nominee to a board if we can determine that he or she attended less than 75% of the board and/or relevant committee meetings in the previous year without a valid reason stated in the proxy materials or other company communications. In addition, MFS may not support some or all nominees standing for re-election to a board if we can determine: (1) the board or its compensation committee has re-priced or exchanged underwater stock options since the last annual meeting of shareholders and without shareholder approval; (2) the board or relevant committee has not taken adequately responsive action to an issue that received majority support or opposition from shareholders; (3) the board has implemented a poison pill without shareholder approval since the last annual meeting and such poison pill is not on the subsequent shareholder meeting’s agenda, (including those related to net-operating loss carryforwards); or (4) there are governance concerns with a director or issuer.

MFS may not support certain board nominees of U.S. issuers under certain circumstances where MFS deems compensation to be egregious due to pay-for-performance issues and/or poor pay practices. Please see the section below titled “MFS’ Policy on Specific Issues - Advisory Votes on Executive Compensation” for further details.

MFS evaluates a contested or contentious election of directors on a case-by-case basis considering the long-term financial performance of the company relative to its industry, management’s track record, the qualifications of all nominees, and an evaluation of what each side is offering shareholders.

Majority Voting and Director Elections

MFS votes for reasonably crafted proposals calling for directors to be elected with an affirmative majority of votes cast and/or the elimination of the plurality standard for electing directors (including binding resolutions requesting that the board amend the company’s bylaws), provided the proposal includes a carve-out for a plurality voting standard when there are more director nominees than board seats (e.g., contested elections) (“Majority Vote Proposals”).

Classified Boards

MFS generally supports proposals to declassify a board (i.e.; a board in which only one-third of board members is elected each year) for all issuers other than for certain closed-end investment companies. MFS generally opposes proposals to classify a board for issuers other than for certain closed-end investment companies.

Proxy Access

MFS believes that the ability of qualifying shareholders to nominate a certain number of directors on the company’s proxy statement (“Proxy Access”) may have corporate governance benefits. However, such potential benefits must be balanced by its potential misuse by shareholders. Therefore, we support Proxy Access proposals at U.S. issuers that establish an ownership criteria of 3% of the company held continuously for a period of 3 years. MFS analyzes all other proposals seeking Proxy Access on a case-by-case basis. In its analysis, MFS will consider the proposed ownership criteria for qualifying shareholders (such as ownership threshold and holding period) as well as the proponent’s rationale for seeking Proxy Access.

Stock Plans

MFS opposes stock option programs and restricted stock plans that provide unduly generous compensation for officers, directors or employees, or that could result in excessive dilution to other shareholders. As a general guideline, MFS votes against restricted stock, stock option, non-employee director, omnibus stock plans and any other stock plan if all such plans for a particular company involve potential dilution, in the aggregate, of more than 15%. However, MFS will also vote against stock plans that involve potential dilution, in aggregate, of more than 10% at U.S. issuers that are listed in the Standard and Poor’s 100 index as of December 31 of the previous year. In the cases where a stock plan amendment is seeking qualitative changes and not additional shares, MFS will vote its shares on a case-by-case basis.

MFS also opposes stock option programs that allow the board or the compensation committee to re-price underwater options or to automatically replenish shares without shareholder approval. MFS also votes against stock option programs for officers, employees or non-employee directors that do not require an investment by the optionee, that give “free rides” on the stock price, or that permit grants of stock options with an exercise price below fair market value on the date the options are granted. MFS will consider proposals to exchange existing options for newly issued options, restricted stock or cash on a case-by-case basis, taking into account certain factors, including, but not limited to, whether there is a reasonable value-for-value exchange and whether senior executives are excluded from participating in the exchange.

MFS supports the use of a broad-based employee stock purchase plans to increase company stock ownership by employees, provided that shares purchased under the plan are acquired for no less than 85% of their market value and do not result in excessive dilution.

Shareholder Proposals on Executive Compensation

MFS believes that competitive compensation packages are necessary to attract, motivate and retain executives. However, MFS also recognizes that certain executive compensation practices can be “excessive” and not in the best, long-term economic interest of a company’s shareholders. We believe that the election of an issuer’s board of directors (as outlined above), votes on stock plans (as outlined above) and advisory votes on pay (as outlined below) are typically the most effective mechanisms to express our view on a company’s compensation practices.

MFS generally opposes shareholder proposals that seek to set rigid restrictions on executive compensation as MFS believes that compensation committees should retain some flexibility to determine the appropriate pay package for executives. Although we support linking executive stock option grants to a company’s performance, MFS also opposes shareholder proposals that mandate a link of performance-based pay to a specific metric. MFS generally supports reasonably crafted shareholder proposals that (i) require the issuer to adopt a policy to recover the portion of performance-based bonuses and awards paid to senior executives that were not earned based upon a significant negative restatement of earnings unless the company already has adopted a satisfactory policy on the matter, or (ii) expressly prohibit the backdating of stock options.

Advisory Votes on Executive Compensation

MFS will analyze advisory votes on executive compensation on a case-by-case basis. MFS will vote against an advisory vote on executive compensation if MFS determines that the issuer has adopted excessive executive compensation practices and will vote in favor of an advisory vote on executive compensation if MFS has not determined that the issuer has adopted excessive executive compensation practices. Examples of excessive executive compensation practices may include, but are not limited to, a pay-for-performance disconnect, employment contract terms such as guaranteed bonus provisions, unwarranted pension payouts, backdated stock options, overly generous hiring bonuses for chief executive officers, unnecessary perquisites, or the potential reimbursement of excise taxes to an executive in regards to a severance package. In cases where MFS (i) votes against consecutive advisory pay votes, or (ii) determines that a particularly egregious excessive executive compensation practice has occurred, then MFS may also vote against certain or all board nominees. MFS may also vote against certain or all board nominees if an advisory pay vote for a U.S. issuer is not on the agenda, or the company has not implemented the advisory vote frequency supported by a plurality/ majority of shareholders.

MFS generally supports proposals to include an advisory shareholder vote on an issuer’s executive compensation practices on an annual basis.

“Golden Parachutes”

From time to time, MFS may evaluate a separate, advisory vote on severance packages or “golden parachutes” to certain executives at the same time as a vote on a proposed merger or acquisition. MFS will support an advisory vote on a severance package on a on a case-by-case basis, and MFS may vote against the severance package regardless of whether MFS supports the proposed merger or acquisition.

Shareholders of companies may also submit proxy proposals that would require shareholder approval of severance packages for executive officers that exceed certain predetermined thresholds. MFS votes in favor of such shareholder proposals when they would require shareholder approval of any severance package for an executive officer that exceeds a certain multiple of such officer’s annual compensation that is not determined in MFS’ judgment to be excessive.

Anti-Takeover Measures

In general, MFS votes against any measure that inhibits capital appreciation in a stock, including proposals that protect management from action by shareholders. These types of proposals take many forms, ranging from “poison pills” and “shark repellents” to super-majority requirements.

MFS generally votes for proposals to rescind existing “poison pills” and proposals that would require shareholder approval to adopt prospective “poison pills,” unless the company already has adopted a clearly satisfactory policy on the matter. MFS may consider the adoption of a prospective “poison pill” or the continuation of an existing “poison pill” if we can determine that the following two conditions are met: (1) the “poison pill” allows MFS clients to hold an aggregate position of up to 15% of a company’s total voting securities (and of any class of voting securities); and (2) either (a) the “poison pill” has a term of not longer than five years, provided that MFS will consider voting in favor of the “poison pill” if the term does not exceed seven years and the “poison pill” is linked to a business strategy or purpose that MFS believes is likely to result in greater value for shareholders; or (b) the terms of the “poison pill” allow MFS clients the opportunity to accept a fairly structured and attractively priced tender offer (e.g. a “chewable poison pill” that automatically dissolves in the event of an all cash, all shares tender offer at a premium price). MFS will also consider on a case-by-case basis proposals designed to prevent tenders which are disadvantageous to shareholders such as tenders at below market prices and tenders for substantially less than all shares of an issuer.

MFS will consider any poison pills designed to protect a company’s net-operating loss carryforwards on a case-by-case basis, weighing the accounting and tax benefits of such a pill against the risk of deterring future acquisition candidates.

Reincorporation and Reorganization Proposals

When presented with a proposal to reincorporate a company under the laws of a different state, or to effect some other type of corporate reorganization, MFS considers the underlying purpose and ultimate effect of such a proposal in determining whether or not to support such a measure. MFS generally votes with management in regards to these types of proposals, however, if MFS believes the proposal is in the best long-term economic interests of its clients, then MFS may vote against management (e.g. the intent or effect would be to create additional inappropriate impediments to possible acquisitions or takeovers).

Issuance of Stock

There are many legitimate reasons for the issuance of stock. Nevertheless, as noted above under “Stock Plans,” when a stock option plan (either individually or when aggregated with other plans of the same company) would substantially dilute the existing equity (e.g. by approximately 10-15% as described above), MFS generally votes against the plan. In addition, MFS typically votes against proposals where management is asking for authorization to issue common or preferred stock with no reason stated (a “blank check”) because the unexplained authorization could work as a potential anti-takeover device. MFS may also vote against the authorization or issuance of common or preferred stock if MFS determines that the requested authorization is excessive or not warranted.

Repurchase Programs

MFS supports proposals to institute share repurchase plans in which all shareholders have the opportunity to participate on an equal basis. Such plans may include a company acquiring its own shares on the open market, or a company making a tender offer to its own shareholders.

Cumulative Voting

MFS opposes proposals that seek to introduce cumulative voting and for proposals that seek to eliminate cumulative voting. In either case, MFS will consider whether cumulative voting is likely to enhance the interests of MFS’ clients as minority shareholders.

Written Consent and Special Meetings

The right to call a special meeting or act by written consent can be a powerful tool for shareholders. As such, MFS supports proposals requesting the right for shareholders who hold at least 10% of the issuer’s outstanding stock to call a special meeting. MFS also supports proposals requesting the right for shareholders to act by written consent.

Independent Auditors

MFS believes that the appointment of auditors for U.S. issuers is best left to the board of directors of the company and therefore supports the ratification of the board’s selection of an auditor for the company. Some shareholder groups have submitted proposals to limit the non-audit activities of a company’s audit firm or prohibit any non-audit services by a company’s auditors to that company. MFS opposes proposals recommending the prohibition or limitation of the performance of non-audit services by an auditor, and proposals recommending the removal of a company’s auditor due to the performance of non-audit work for the company by its auditor. MFS believes that the board, or its audit committee, should have the discretion to hire the company’s auditor for specific pieces of non-audit work in the limited situations permitted under current law.

Other Business

MFS generally votes against “other business” proposals as the content of any such matter is not known at the time of our vote.

Adjourn Shareholder Meeting

MFS generally supports proposals to adjourn a shareholder meeting if we support the other ballot items on the meeting’s agenda. MFS generally votes against proposals to adjourn a meeting if we do not support the other ballot items on the meeting’s agenda.

Environmental, Social and Governance (“ESG”) Issues

MFS believes that a company’s ESG practices may have an impact on the company’s long-term economic financial performance and will generally support proposals relating to ESG issues that MFS believes are in the best long-term economic interest of the company’s shareholders. For those ESG proposals for which a specific policy has not been adopted, MFS considers such ESG proposals on a case-by-case basis. As a result, it may vote similar proposals differently at various shareholder meetings based on the specific facts and circumstances of such proposal.

MFS generally supports proposals that seek to remove governance structures that insulate management from shareholders (i.e., anti-takeover measures) or that seek to enhance shareholder rights. Many of these governance-related issues, including compensation issues, are outlined within the context of the above guidelines. In addition, MFS typically supports proposals that require an issuer to reimburse successful dissident shareholders (who are not seeking control of the company) for reasonable expenses that such dissident incurred in soliciting an alternative slate of director candidates. MFS also generally supports reasonably crafted shareholder proposals requesting increased disclosure

around the company’s use of collateral in derivatives trading. MFS typically does not support proposals to separate the chairman and CEO positions as we believe that the most beneficial leadership structure of a company should be determined by the company’s board of directors. However, we will generally support such proposals if we determine there to be governance concerns at the issuer. For any governance-related proposal for which an explicit guideline is not provided above, MFS will consider such proposals on a case-by-case basis and will support such proposals if MFS believes that it is in the best long-term economic interest of the company’s shareholders.

MFS generally supports proposals that request disclosure on the impact of environmental issues on the company’s operations, sales, and capital investments. However, MFS may not support such proposals based on the facts and circumstances surrounding a specific proposal, including, but not limited to, whether (i) the proposal is unduly costly, restrictive, or burdensome, (ii) the company already provides publicly-available information that is sufficient to enable shareholders to evaluate the potential opportunities and risks that environmental matters pose to the company’s operations, sales and capital investments, or (iii) the proposal seeks a level of disclosure that exceeds that provided by the company’s industry peers. MFS will analyze all other environmental proposals on a case-by-case basis and will support such proposals if MFS believes such proposal is in the best long-term economic interest of the company’s shareholders.

MFS will analyze social proposals on a case-by-case basis. MFS will support such proposals if MFS believes that such proposal is in the best long-term economic interest of the company’s shareholders. Generally, MFS will support shareholder proposals that (i) seek to amend a company’s equal employment opportunity policy to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity; and (ii) request additional disclosure regarding a company’s political contributions (including trade organizations and lobbying activity) (unless the company already provides publicly-available information that is sufficient to enable shareholders to evaluate the potential opportunities and risks that such contributions pose to the company’s operations, sales and capital investments).

The laws of various states or countries may regulate how the interests of certain clients subject to those laws (e.g. state pension plans) are voted with respect to social issues. Thus, it may be necessary to cast ballots differently for certain clients than MFS might normally do for other clients.

Foreign Issuers

MFS generally supports the election of a director nominee standing for re-election in uncontested or non-contentious elections unless it can be determined that (1) he or she failed to attend at least 75% of the board and/or relevant committee meetings in the previous year without a valid reason given in the proxy

materials; (2) since the last annual meeting of shareholders and without shareholder approval, the board or its compensation committee has re-priced underwater stock options; or (3) since the last annual meeting, the board has either implemented a poison pill without shareholder approval or has not taken responsive action to a majority shareholder approved resolution recommending that the “poison pill” be rescinded. Also, certain markets outside of the U.S. have adopted best practice guidelines relating to corporate governance matters (e.g. the United Kingdom’s Corporate Governance Code). Many of these guidelines operate on a “comply or explain” basis. As such, MFS will evaluate any explanations by companies relating to their compliance with a particular corporate governance guideline on a case-by-case basis and may vote against the board nominees or other relevant ballot item if such explanation is not satisfactory.

MFS generally supports the election of auditors, but may determine to vote against the election of a statutory auditor in certain markets if MFS reasonably believes that the statutory auditor is not truly independent.

Some international markets have also adopted mandatory requirements for all companies to hold shareholder votes on executive compensation. MFS will not support such proposals if MFS determines that a company’s executive compensation practices are excessive, considering such factors as the specific market’s best practices that seek to maintain appropriate pay-for-performance alignment and to create long-term shareholder value.

Many other items on foreign proxies involve repetitive, non-controversial matters that are mandated by local law. Accordingly, the items that are generally deemed routine and which do not require the exercise of judgment under these guidelines (and therefore voted with management) for foreign issuers include, but are not limited to, the following: (i) receiving financial statements or other reports from the board; (ii) approval of declarations of dividends; (iii) appointment of shareholders to sign board meeting minutes; (iv) discharge of management and supervisory boards; and (v) approval of share repurchase programs (absent any anti-takeover or other concerns). MFS will evaluate all other items on proxies for foreign companies in the context of the guidelines described above, but will generally vote against an item if there is not sufficient information disclosed in order to make an informed voting decision.

In accordance with local law or business practices, some foreign companies or custodians prevent the sales of shares that have been voted for a certain period beginning prior to the shareholder meeting and ending on the day following the meeting (“share blocking”). Depending on the country in which a company is domiciled, the blocking period may begin a stated number of days prior or subsequent to the meeting (e.g. one, three or five days) or on a date established by the company. While practices vary, in many countries the block period can be continued for a longer period if the shareholder meeting is adjourned and postponed to a later date. Similarly, practices vary widely as to the ability of a

shareholder to have the “block” restriction lifted early (e.g. in some countries shares generally can be “unblocked” up to two days prior to the meeting whereas in other countries the removal of the block appears to be discretionary with the issuer’s transfer agent). Due to these restrictions, MFS must balance the benefits to its clients of voting proxies against the potentially serious portfolio management consequences of a reduced flexibility to sell the underlying shares at the most advantageous time. For companies in countries with share blocking periods or in markets where some custodians may block shares, the disadvantage of being unable to sell the stock regardless of changing conditions generally outweighs the advantages of voting at the shareholder meeting for routine items. Accordingly, MFS will not vote those proxies in the absence of an unusual, significant vote that outweighs the disadvantage of being unable to sell the stock.

In limited circumstances, other market specific impediments to voting shares may limit our ability to cast votes, including, but not limited to, late delivery of proxy materials, untimely vote cut-off dates, power of attorney and share re-registration requirements, or any other unusual voting requirements. In these limited instances, MFS votes securities on a best efforts basis in the context of the guidelines described above.

B.	*ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES*

1.	*MFS Proxy Voting Committee*

The administration of these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures is overseen by the MFS Proxy Voting Committee, which includes senior personnel from the MFS Legal and Global Investment Support Departments. The Proxy Voting Committee does not include individuals whose primary duties relate to client relationship management, marketing, or sales. The MFS Proxy Voting Committee:

Reviews these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures at least annually and recommends any amendments considered to be necessary or advisable;

Determines whether any potential material conflict of interest exists with respect to instances in which MFS (i) seeks to override these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures; (ii) votes on ballot items not governed by these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures; (iii) evaluates an excessive executive compensation issue in relation to the election of directors; or (iv) requests a vote recommendation from an MFS portfolio manager or investment analyst (e.g. mergers and acquisitions); and

Considers special proxy issues as they may arise from time to time.

2.	*Potential Conflicts of Interest*

The MFS Proxy Voting Committee is responsible for monitoring potential material conflicts of interest on the part of MFS or its subsidiaries that could arise in connection with the voting of proxies on behalf of MFS’ clients. Due to the client focus of our investment management business, we believe that the potential for actual material conflict of interest issues is small. Nonetheless, we have developed precautions to assure that all proxy votes are cast in the best long-term economic interest of shareholders.¹ Other MFS internal policies require all MFS employees to avoid actual and potential conflicts of interests between personal activities and MFS’ client activities. If an employee (including investment professionals) identifies an actual or potential conflict of interest with respect to any voting decision (including the ownership of securities in their individual portfolio), then that employee must recuse himself/herself from participating in the voting process. Any significant attempt by an employee of MFS or its subsidiaries to unduly influence MFS’ voting on a particular proxy matter should also be reported to the MFS Proxy Voting Committee.

In cases where proxies are voted in accordance with these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures, no material conflict of interest will be deemed to exist. In cases where (i) MFS is considering overriding these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures, (ii) matters presented for vote are not governed by these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures, (iii) MFS evaluates a potentially excessive executive compensation issue in relation to the election of directors or advisory pay or severance package vote, (iv) a vote recommendation is requested from an MFS portfolio manager or investment analyst (e.g. mergers and acquisitions); or (v) MFS evaluates a director nominee who also serves as a director of the MFS Funds (collectively, “Non-Standard Votes”); the MFS Proxy Voting Committee will follow these procedures:

Compare the name of the issuer of such proxy against a list of significant current (i) distributors of MFS Fund shares, and (ii) MFS institutional clients (the “MFS Significant Client List”);

If the name of the issuer does not appear on the MFS Significant Client List, then no material conflict of interest will be deemed to exist, and the proxy will be voted as otherwise determined by the MFS Proxy Voting Committee;

If the name of the issuer appears on the MFS Significant Client List, then the MFS Proxy Voting Committee will be apprised of that fact and each member of the MFS Proxy Voting Committee will carefully evaluate the proposed vote in order to ensure that the proxy ultimately is voted in what MFS believes to be the best long-term economic interests of MFS’ clients, and not in MFS’ corporate interests; and

¹	For clarification purposes, note that MFS votes in what we believe to be the best, long-term economic interest of our clients entitled to vote at the shareholder meeting, regardless of whether other MFS clients hold “short” positions in the same issuer.

For all potential material conflicts of interest identified under clause (c) above, the MFS Proxy Voting Committee will document: the name of the issuer, the issuer’s relationship to MFS, the analysis of the matters submitted for proxy vote, the votes as to be cast and the reasons why the MFS Proxy Voting Committee determined that the votes were cast in the best long-term economic interests of MFS’ clients, and not in MFS’ corporate interests. A copy of the foregoing documentation will be provided to MFS’ Conflicts Officer.

The members of the MFS Proxy Voting Committee are responsible for creating and maintaining the MFS Significant Client List, in consultation with MFS’ distribution and institutional business units. The MFS Significant Client List will be reviewed and updated periodically, as appropriate.

If an MFS client has the right to vote on a matter submitted to shareholders by Sun Life Financial, Inc. or any of its affiliates (collectively “Sun Life”), MFS will cast a vote on behalf of such MFS client pursuant to the recommendations of Institutional Shareholder Services, Inc.’s (“ISS”) benchmark policy, or as required by law.

Except as described in the MFS Fund’s prospectus, from time to time, certain MFS Funds (the “top tier fund”) may own shares of other MFS Funds (the “underlying fund”). If an underlying fund submits a matter to a shareholder vote, the top tier fund will generally vote its shares in the same proportion as the other shareholders of the underlying fund. If there are no other shareholders in the underlying fund, the top tier fund will vote in what MFS believes to be in the top tier fund’s best long-term economic interest. If an MFS client has the right to vote on a matter submitted to shareholders by a pooled investment vehicle advised by MFS, MFS will cast a vote on behalf of such MFS client in the same proportion as the other shareholders of the pooled investment vehicle.

3.	*Gathering Proxies*

Most proxies received by MFS and its clients originate at Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc. (“Broadridge”). Broadridge and other service providers, on behalf of custodians, send proxy related material to the record holders of the shares beneficially owned by MFS’ clients, usually to the client’s proxy voting administrator or, less commonly, to the client itself. This material will include proxy ballots reflecting the shareholdings of Funds and of clients on the record dates for such shareholder meetings, as well as proxy materials with the issuer’s explanation of the items to be voted upon.

MFS, on behalf of itself and certain of its clients (including the MFS Funds) has entered into an agreement with an independent proxy administration firm pursuant to which the proxy administration firm performs various proxy vote related administrative services such as vote processing and recordkeeping functions. Except as noted below, the proxy administration firm for MFS and its clients, including the MFS Funds, is ISS. The proxy administration firm for MFS Development Funds, LLC is Glass, Lewis & Co., Inc. (“Glass Lewis”; Glass Lewis and ISS are each hereinafter referred to as the “Proxy Administrator”).

The Proxy Administrator receives proxy statements and proxy ballots directly or indirectly from various custodians, logs these materials into its database and matches upcoming meetings with MFS Fund and client portfolio holdings, which are input into the Proxy Administrator’s system by an MFS holdings data-feed. Through the use of the Proxy Administrator system, ballots and proxy material summaries for all upcoming shareholders’ meetings are available on-line to certain MFS employees and members of the MFS Proxy Voting Committee.

It is the responsibility of the Proxy Administrator and MFS to monitor the receipt of ballots. When proxy ballots and materials for clients are received by the Proxy Administrator, they are input into the Proxy Administrator’s on-line system. The Proxy Administrator then reconciles a list of all MFS accounts that hold shares of a company’s stock and the number of shares held on the record date by these accounts with the Proxy Administrator’s list of any upcoming shareholder’s meeting of that company. If a proxy ballot has not been received, the Proxy Administrator contacts the custodian requesting the reason as to why a ballot has not been received.

4.	*Analyzing Proxies*

Proxies are voted in accordance with these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures. The Proxy Administrator, at the prior direction of MFS, automatically votes all proxy matters that do not require the particular exercise of discretion or judgment with respect to these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures as determined by MFS. With respect to proxy matters that require the particular exercise of discretion or judgment, the MFS Proxy Voting Committee considers and votes on those proxy matters. MFS also receives research and recommendations from the Proxy Administrator which it may take into account in deciding how to vote. MFS uses the research of ISS to identify (i) circumstances in which a board may have approved excessive executive compensation, (ii) environmental and social proposals that warrant consideration or (iii) circumstances in which a non-U.S. company is not in compliance with local governance or compensation best practices. In those situations where the only MFS fund that is eligible to vote at a shareholder meeting has Glass Lewis as its Proxy Administrator, then we will rely on research from Glass Lewis to identify such issues. Representatives of the MFS Proxy Voting Committee review, as appropriate, votes cast to ensure conformity with these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures.

As a general matter, portfolio managers and investment analysts have little involvement in most votes taken by MFS. This is designed to promote consistency in the application of MFS’ voting guidelines, to promote consistency in voting on the same or similar issues (for the same or for multiple issuers) across all client accounts, and to minimize the potential that proxy solicitors, issuers, or third parties might attempt to exert inappropriate influence on the vote. In limited types of votes (e.g. mergers and acquisitions, capitalization matters, potentially excessive executive compensation issues, or shareholder proposals relating to environmental and social issues), a representative of MFS Proxy Voting Committee may consult with or seek recommendations from MFS portfolio managers or investment analysts.² However, the MFS Proxy Voting Committee would ultimately determine the manner in which all proxies are voted.

As noted above, MFS reserves the right to override the guidelines when such an override is, in MFS’ best judgment, consistent with the overall principle of voting proxies in the best long-term economic interests of MFS’ clients. Any such override of the guidelines shall be analyzed, documented and reported in accordance with the procedures set forth in these policies.

5.	*Voting Proxies*

In accordance with its contract with MFS, the Proxy Administrator also generates a variety of reports for the MFS Proxy Voting Committee, and makes available on-line various other types of information so that the MFS Proxy Voting Committee or proxy team may review and monitor the votes cast by the Proxy Administrator on behalf of MFS’ clients.

6.	*Securities Lending*

From time to time, the MFS Funds or other pooled investment vehicles sponsored by MFS may participate in a securities lending program. In the event MFS or its agent receives timely notice of a shareholder meeting for a U.S. security, MFS and its agent will attempt to recall any securities on loan before the meeting’s record date so that MFS will be entitled to vote these shares. However, there may be instances in which MFS is unable to timely recall securities on loan for a U.S. security, in which cases MFS will not be able to vote these shares. MFS will report to the appropriate board of the MFS Funds those instances in which MFS is not able to timely recall the loaned securities. MFS generally does not

From time to time, due to travel schedules and other commitments, an appropriate portfolio manager or research analyst may not be available to provide a vote recommendation. If such a recommendation cannot be obtained within a reasonable time prior to the cut-off date of the shareholder meeting, the MFS Proxy Voting Committee may determine to abstain from voting.

recall non-U.S. securities on loan because there may be insufficient advance notice of proxy materials, record dates, or vote cut-off dates to allow MFS to timely recall the shares in certain markets on an automated basis. As a result, non-U.S. securities that are on loan will not generally be voted. If MFS receives timely notice of what MFS determines to be an unusual, significant vote for a non-U.S. security whereas MFS shares are on loan, and determines that voting is in the best long-term economic interest of shareholders, then MFS will attempt to timely recall the loaned shares.

7.	*Engagement*

The MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures are available on www.mfs.com and may be accessed by both MFS’ clients and the companies in which MFS’ clients invest. From time to time, MFS may determine that it is appropriate and beneficial for representatives from the MFS Proxy Voting Committee to engage in a dialogue or written communication with a company or other shareholders regarding certain matters on the company’s proxy statement that are of concern to shareholders, including environmental, social and governance matters. A company or shareholder may also seek to engage with representatives of the MFS Proxy Voting Committee in advance of the company’s formal proxy solicitation to review issues more generally or gauge support for certain contemplated proposals.

C.	*RECORDS RETENTION*

MFS will retain copies of these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures in effect from time to time and will retain all proxy voting reports submitted to the Board of Trustees of the MFS Funds for the period required by applicable law. Proxy solicitation materials, including electronic versions of the proxy ballots completed by representatives of the MFS Proxy Voting Committee, together with their respective notes and comments, are maintained in an electronic format by the Proxy Administrator and are accessible on-line by the MFS Proxy Voting Committee. All proxy voting materials and supporting documentation, including records generated by the Proxy Administrator’s system as to proxies processed, including the dates when proxy ballots were received and submitted, and the votes on each company’s proxy issues, are retained as required by applicable law.

D.	*REPORTS*

MFS Funds

MFS publicly discloses the proxy voting records of the MFS Funds on an annual basis, as required by law. MFS will also report the results of its voting to the Board of Trustees of the MFS Funds. These reports will include: (i) a summary of how votes were cast (including advisory votes on pay and “golden parachutes”) ;

(ii) a summary of votes against management’s recommendation; (iii) a review of situations where MFS did not vote in accordance with the guidelines and the rationale therefore; (iv) a review of the procedures used by MFS to identify material conflicts of interest and any matters identified as a material conflict of interest; (v) a review of these policies and the guidelines; (vi) a review of our proxy engagement activity; (vii) a report and impact assessment of instances in which the recall of loaned securities of a U.S. issuer was unsuccessful; and (viii) as necessary or appropriate, any proposed modifications thereto to reflect new developments in corporate governance and other issues. Based on these reviews, the Trustees and Managers of the MFS Funds will consider possible modifications to these policies to the extent necessary or advisable.

All MFS Advisory Clients

MFS may publicly disclose the proxy voting records of certain clients or the votes it casts with respect to certain matters as required by law. At any time, a report can also be printed by MFS for each client who has requested that MFS furnish a record of votes cast. The report specifies the proxy issues which have been voted for the client during the year and the position taken with respect to each issue and, upon request, may identify situations where MFS did not vote in accordance with the MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures.

Except as described above, MFS generally will not divulge actual voting practices to any party other than the client or its representatives because we consider that information to be confidential and proprietary to the client. However, as noted above, MFS may determine that it is appropriate and beneficial to engage in a dialogue with a company regarding certain matters. During such dialogue with the company, MFS may disclose the vote it intends to cast in order to potentially effect positive change at a company in regards to environmental, social or governance issues.

ITEM 8.

PORTFOLIO MANAGERS OF CLOSED-END MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT COMPANIES.

Portfolio Manager(s)

Information regarding the portfolio manager(s) of MFS Intermediate Income Trust (the “Fund”) is set forth below. Each portfolio manager is primarily responsible for the day-to-day management of the Fund.


Portfolio Manager	Primary Role	Since	Title and Five Year History
James J. Calmas	Lead and Investment Grade Debt Instruments Portfolio Manager	2002	Investment Officer of MFS; employed in the investment area of MFS since 1988.

Ward Brown	Emerging Markets Debt Instruments Portfolio Manager	2012	Investment Officer of MFS; employed in the investment area of MFS 2005

Matthew W. Ryan	Emerging Markets Debt Instruments Portfolio Manager	2012	Investment Officer of MFS; employed in the investment area of MFS 1997

Erik S. Weisman	Portfolio Manager	2004	Investment Officer of MFS; employed in the investment area of MFS since 2002.

Compensation

Portfolio manager compensation is reviewed annually. As of December 31, 2012, portfolio manager total cash compensation is a combination of base salary and performance bonus:

Base Salary – Base salary represents a smaller percentage of portfolio manager total cash compensation than performance bonus.

Performance Bonus – Generally, the performance bonus represents more than a majority of portfolio manager total cash compensation.

The performance bonus is based on a combination of quantitative and qualitative factors, generally with more weight given to the former and less weight given to the latter.

The quantitative portion is based on the pre-tax performance of assets managed by the portfolio manager over one-, three-, and five-year periods relative to peer group universes and/or indices (“benchmarks”). As of December 31, 2012, the following benchmarks were used to measure the following portfolio manager’s performance for the following Fund:


Fund	Portfolio Manager	Benchmark(s)
MFS Intermediate Income Trust	James J. Calmas	Barclays Intermediate U.S. Government Bond Index JP Morgan Global Government Bond Index ex U.S. Hedged

	Ward Brown	JP Morgan Emerging Markets Bond Index Global

	Matthew W. Ryan	JP Morgan Emerging Markets Bond Index Global

	Erik S. Weisman	JPMorgan Global Government Bond Index ex U.S.

Additional or different benchmarks, including versions of indices, custom indices, and linked indices that combine performance of different indices for different portions of the time period, may also be used. Primary weight is given to portfolio performance over a three-year time period with lesser consideration given to portfolio performance over one- and five-year periods (adjusted as appropriate if the portfolio manager has served for less than five years).

The qualitative portion is based on the results of an annual internal peer review process (conducted by other portfolio managers, analysts, and traders) and management’s assessment of overall portfolio manager contributions to investor relations and the investment process (distinct from fund and other account performance). This performance bonus may be in the form of cash and/or a deferred cash award, at the discretion of management. A deferred cash award is issued for a cash value and becomes payable over a three-year vesting period if the portfolio manager remains in the continuous employ of MFS or its affiliates. During the vesting period, the value of the unfunded deferred cash award will fluctuate as though the portfolio manager had invested the cash value of the award in an MFS Fund(s) selected by the portfolio manager. A selected fund may be, but is not required to be, a fund that is managed by the portfolio manager.

Portfolio managers also typically benefit from the opportunity to participate in the MFS Equity Plan. Equity interests and/or options to acquire equity interests in MFS or its parent company are awarded by management, on a discretionary basis, taking into account tenure at MFS, contribution to the investment process, and other factors.

Finally, portfolio managers also participate in benefit plans (including a defined contribution plan and health and other insurance plans) and programs available generally to other employees of MFS. The percentage such benefits represent of any portfolio manager’s compensation depends upon the length of the individual’s tenure at MFS and salary level, as well as other factors.

Ownership of Fund Shares

The following table shows the dollar range of equity securities of the Fund beneficially owned by the Fund’s portfolio manager(s) as of the Fund’s fiscal year ended October 31, 2013. The following dollar ranges apply:

N. None

A. $1 – $10,000

B. $10,001 – $50,000

C. $50,001 – $100,000

D. $100,001 – $500,000

E. $500,001 – $1,000,000

F. Over $1,000,000


Name of Portfolio Manager		Dollar Range of Equity Securities in Fund
James J. Calmas		N
Ward Brown		N
Matthew W. Ryan		N
Erik S. Weisman		N

Other Accounts

In addition to the Fund, each portfolio manager of the Fund is named as a portfolio manager of certain other accounts managed or subadvised by MFS or an affiliate. The number and assets of these accounts were as follows as of October 31, 2013:

Registered Investment
Companies*

Other Pooled Investment
Vehicles

Other Accounts

Name

Number of
Accounts

Total Assets

Number of
Accounts

Total Assets

Number of
Accounts

Total Assets

James J. Calmas

$4.3 billion

$1.1 billion

N/A

Ward Brown

$12.1 billion

$4.1 billion

$3.4 billion

Matthew W. Ryan

$12.9 billion

$4.1 billion

$3.4 billion

Erik S. Weisman

$6.3 billion

$2.3 billion

$26.3 million

*	Includes the Fund.

Advisory fees are not based upon performance of any of the accounts identified in the table above.

Potential Conflicts of Interest

The Adviser seeks to identify potential conflicts of interest resulting from a portfolio manager’s management of both the Fund and other accounts, and has adopted policies and procedures designed to address such potential conflicts.

The management of multiple funds and accounts (including proprietary accounts) gives rise to potential conflicts of interest if the funds and accounts have different objectives and strategies, benchmarks, time horizons and fees as a portfolio manager must allocate his or her time and investment ideas across multiple funds and accounts. In certain instances there are securities which are suitable for the Fund’s portfolio as well as for accounts of the Adviser or its subsidiaries with similar investment objectives. The Fund’s trade allocation policies may give rise to conflicts of interest if the Fund’s orders do not get fully executed or are delayed in getting executed due to being aggregated with those of other accounts of the Adviser or its subsidiaries. A portfolio manager may execute transactions for another fund or account that may adversely affect the value of the Fund’s investments. Investments selected for funds or accounts other than the Fund may outperform investments selected for the Fund.

When two or more clients are simultaneously engaged in the purchase or sale of the same security, the securities are allocated among clients in a manner believed by the Adviser to be fair and equitable to each. It is recognized that in some cases this system could have a detrimental effect on the price or volume of the security as far as the Fund is concerned. In most cases, however, the Adviser believes that the Fund’s ability to participate in volume transactions will produce better executions for the Fund.

The Adviser and/or a portfolio manager may have a financial incentive to allocate favorable or limited opportunity investments or structure the timing of investments to favor accounts other than the Fund, for instance, those that pay a higher advisory fee and/or have a performance adjustment and/or include an investment by the portfolio manager.

ITEM 9.

PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES BY CLOSED-END MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT COMPANY AND AFFILIATED PURCHASERS.

MFS Intermediate Income Trust


Period	(a) Total number of Shares Purchased		(b) Average Price Paid per Share		(c) Total Number of Shares Purchased as Part of Publicly Announced Plans or Programs		(d) Maximum Number (or Approximate Dollar Value) of Shares that May Yet Be Purchased under the Plans or Programs
11/01/12-11/30/12		0		N/A		0		11,700,834
12/01/12-12/31/12		0		N/A		0		11,700,834
1/01/13-1/31/13		0		N/A		0		11,700,834
2/01/13-2/28/13		0		N/A		0		11,700,834
3/01/13-3/31/13		0		N/A		0		11,778,029
4/01/13-4/30/13		0		N/A		0		11,778,029
5/01/13-5/31/13		0		N/A		0		11,778,029
6/01/13-6/30/13		0		N/A		0		11,778,029
7/01/13-7/31/13		0		N/A		0		11,778,029
8/01/13-8/31/13		0		N/A		0		11,778,029
9/01/13-9/30/13		0		N/A		0		11,778,029
10/01/13-10/31/13		0		N/A		0		11,778,029

*Total*		0				0

Note: The Board of Trustees approves procedures to repurchase shares annually. The notification to shareholders of the program is part of the semi-annual and annual reports sent to shareholders. These annual programs begin on March 1^st of each year. The programs conform to the conditions of Rule 10b-18 of the securities Exchange Act of 1934

and limit the aggregate number of shares that may be purchased in each annual period (March 1 through the following February 28) to 10% of the Registrant’s outstanding shares as of the first day of the plan year (March 1). The aggregate number of shares available for purchase for the March 1, 2013 plan year is 11,778,029.

ITEM 10.

SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS.

There were no material changes to the procedures by which shareholders may send recommendations to the Board for nominees to the Registrant’s Board since the Registrant last provided disclosure as to such procedures in response to the requirements of Item 407 (c)(2)(iv) of Regulation S-K or this Item.

ITEM 11.

CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES.

(a)

Based upon their evaluation of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rule 30a-3(c) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”)) as conducted within 90 days of the filing date of this Form N-CSR, the registrant’s principal financial officer and principal executive officer have concluded that those disclosure controls and procedures provide reasonable assurance that the material information required to be disclosed by the registrant on this report is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rules and forms.

(b)

There were no changes in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting (as defined in Rule 30a-3(d) under the Act) that occurred during the second fiscal quarter covered by the report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

ITEM 12.

EXHIBITS.

(a)	File the exhibits listed below as part of this form. Letter or number the exhibits in the sequence indicated.

(1)

Any code of ethics, or amendment thereto, that is the subject of the disclosure required by Item 2, to the extent that the registrant intends to satisfy the Item 2 requirements through filing of an exhibit: Code of Ethics attached hereto.

(2)

A separate certification for each principal executive officer and principal financial officer of the registrant as required by Rule 30a-2(a) under the Act (17 CFR 270.30a-2): Attached hereto.

(3)

Notices to Trust’s common shareholders in accordance with Investment Company Act Section 19(a) and Rule 19a-1.

(b)

If the report is filed under Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, provide the certifications required by Rule 30a-2(b) under the Act (17 CFR 270.30a-2(b)), Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13a-14(b) or 240.15d-14(b)) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. 1350) as an exhibit. A certification furnished pursuant to this paragraph will not be deemed “filed” for the purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78r), or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the registrant specifically incorporates it by reference: Attached hereto.

Notice

A copy of the Amended and Restated Declaration of Trust of the Registrant is on file with the Secretary of State of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and notice is hereby given that this instrument is executed on behalf of the Registrant by an officer of the Registrant as an officer and not individually and the obligations of or arising out of this instrument are not binding upon any of the Trustees or shareholders individually, but are binding only upon the assets and property of the respective constituent series of the Registrant.

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Company Act of 1940, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

Registrant MFS INTERMEDIATE INCOME TRUST


By (Signature and Title)*		JOHN M. CORCORAN
		John M. Corcoran, President

Date: December 16, 2013

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Company Act of 1940, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.


By (Signature and Title)*		JOHN M. CORCORAN
		John M. Corcoran, President (Principal Executive Officer)

Date: December 16, 2013


By (Signature and Title)*		DAVID L. DILORENZO
		David L. DiLorenzo, Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer and Accounting Officer)

Date: December 16, 2013

*	Print name and title of each signing officer under his or her signature.