Edgar Filing: MFS CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL FUND

MFS CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL FUND 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 811-09537

MFS CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL FUND

(Exact name of registrant as specified in charter)

111 Huntington Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02199

(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip code)

Christopher R. Bohane

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: November 30

Date of reporting period: November 30, 2016

ITEM 1.

REPORTS TO STOCKHOLDERS.

ANNUAL REPORT

November 30, 2016

LOGO

MFS® CALIFORNIA

MUNICIPAL FUND

LOGO

CCA-ANN

MFS® CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL FUND

NYSE MKT Symbol: CCA


Letter from the Chairman			1
Portfolio composition			2
Management review			4
Performance summary			7
Portfolio managers’ profiles			9
Dividend reinvestment and cash purchase plan			10
Portfolio of investments			11
Statement of assets and liabilities			21
Statement of operations			22
Statements of changes in net assets			23
Statement of cash flows			24
Financial highlights			25
Notes to financial statements			27
Report of independent registered public accounting firm			38
Results of shareholder meetings			39
Trustees and officers			40
Board review of investment advisory agreement			45
Proxy voting policies and information			49
Quarterly portfolio disclosure			49
Further information			49
Information about fund contracts and legal claims			50
Federal tax information			50
MFS^® privacy notice			51
Contact information back cover

NOT FDIC INSURED • MAY LOSE VALUE • NO BANK GUARANTEE

LOGO

LETTER FROM THE CHAIRMAN

Dear Shareholders:

Despite June’s unexpected vote by the United Kingdom to leave the European Union and the surprising result in November’s U.S. presidential election, most markets have

proved resilient. U.S. share prices quickly reversed post-Brexit declines, and indices reached new highs following the November elections. U.S. bond yields rose after Trump’s victory on hopes that his proposed policy mix of lower taxes, increased spending on infrastructure and a lower regulatory burden on businesses will lift both U.S. economic growth and inflation. However, even after a recent rise in bond yields, interest rates in most developed markets remain very low, with major central banks maintaining extremely accommodative monetary policies.

Globally, economic growth has shown signs of recovery of late, led by the United States and the eurozone. Despite better growth,

there are few immediate signs of worrisome inflation. Emerging market economies are recovering at a somewhat slower pace amid fears that restrictive U.S. trade policies could further hamper the already slow pace of global trade growth.

At MFS®, we believe in a patient, long-term approach to investing. Viewing investments with a long lens makes it possible to filter out short-term market noise and focus on achieving solid risk-adjusted returns over a full market cycle.

In our view, such an approach, along with the professional guidance of a financial advisor, will help you reach your investment objectives.

Respectfully,

LOGO

Robert J. Manning

Executive Chairman

MFS Investment Management

January 13, 2017

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

PORTFOLIO COMPOSITION

Portfolio structure (i)(j)

LOGO


Top five industries (i)
General Obligations – Schools			30.4%
Healthcare Revenue – Hospitals			26.8%
Water & Sewer Utility Revenue			17.3%
State & Local Agencies			12.3%
Tax Assessment			11.8%


Composition including fixed income credit quality (a)(i)
AAA			2.2%
AA			64.1%
A			66.2%
BBB			14.8%
BB			1.5%
B			4.6%
CCC			0.9%
CC			1.4%
D			1.3%
Not Rated (j)			5.5%
Cash & Cash Equivalents			(69.9)%
Other			7.4%

Portfolio facts (i)
Average Duration (d)			10.6
Average Effective Maturity (m)			15.2 yrs.

Jurisdiction (i)
California			161.5%
Puerto Rico			5.3%
New York			1.7%
Guam			1.4%
U.S. Treasury Securities (j)			(7.4)%

(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. Not Rated includes fixed income securities, including fixed income futures contracts, which have not been rated by any rating agency. The fund may or may not have held all of these instruments on this date. 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. This calculation is based on net assets applicable to common shares as of 11/30/16.

Portfolio Composition – continued

(i)

For purposes of this presentation, the components include the 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 value. The bond component will include any accrued interest amounts.

(j)	For the purpose of managing the fund’s duration, the fund holds short treasury futures with a bond equivalent exposure of (7.4)%, which reduce the fund’s interest rate exposure but not its credit exposure.

(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. This calculation is based on gross assets, which consists of net assets applicable to common shares plus the value of preferred shares, as of 11/30/16.

From time to time Cash & Cash Equivalents may be negative due to the aggregate liquidation value of variable rate municipal term preferred shares and/or timing of cash receipts.

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

Cash & Cash Equivalents includes any cash, investments in money market funds, short-term securities, and other assets less liabilities. Please see the Statement of Assets and Liabilities for additional information related to the fund’s cash position and other assets and liabilities.

Other includes equivalent exposure from currency derivatives and/or any offsets to derivative positions.

Percentages are based on net assets applicable to common shares as of 11/30/16.

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

MANAGEMENT REVIEW

Summary of Results

MFS California Municipal Fund (“fund”) is a closed-end fund. The fund’s investment objective is to seek high current income exempt from federal income tax and California personal income tax, but may also consider capital appreciation. The fund invests, under normal market conditions, at least 80% of its net assets, including assets attributable to preferred shares and borrowings for investment purposes, in debt securities the interest on which in the opinion of issuer counsel (or other reputable authority) is exempt from federal regular income tax and California personal income tax.

For the twelve months ended November 30, 2016, shares of the MFS California Municipal Fund provided a total return of –0.10%, at net asset value and a total return of 1.57%, at market value. This compares with a return of –0.22% for the fund’s benchmark, the Bloomberg Barclays Municipal Bond Index (formerly Barclays Municipal Bond Index).

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

Sluggish global growth weighed on both developed and emerging market (“EM”) economies during the reporting period. The US Federal Reserve (“Fed”) began its long-anticipated monetary tightening cycle toward the end of the period, but the tightening cycle has proved to be more gradual than initially anticipated. Globally, central bank policy remained highly accommodative, which forced many government, and even some corporate, bond yields into negative territory. During the second half of the period, the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union (“EU”), beginning a multi-year process of negotiation in order to achieve “Brexit.” While markets initially reacted to the vote with alarm, the spillover to European and EM economies was relatively short-lived, although risks of further hits to EU cohesiveness could re-emerge. Late in the period, the surprising US presidential election outcome prompted a significant rally in equities and a rise in bond yields in anticipation of a reflationary policy mix from the incoming Trump administration.

During much of the reporting period, US earnings headwinds expanded beyond the energy, materials and industrial sectors, to include most sectors of the market. Headwinds eased somewhat at the end of the period as stabilizing oil prices pushed energy earnings higher relative to expectations. The sharp rise in the US dollar also weighed on earnings. US consumer spending held up well during the second half of the period amid a modest increase in real wages and low gasoline prices. Demand for autos reached near-record territory before plateauing late in the period, while the housing market continued its recovery. Slow global trade continued to mirror slow global growth, particularly for many EM countries. That said, EM countries began to show signs of a modest upturn in activity along with adjustment in their external accounts. These improved conditions appeared to have reassured investors and

Management Review – continued

contributed to record inflows into the asset class during July and August as negative yields for an increasing share of developed market bonds drove yield-hungry investors further out on the risk spectrum. Similar investor inflows were experienced in the investment grade and high yield corporate markets. Late in the reporting period, however, new challenges emerged for emerging markets debt (“EMD”) as a result of the US presidential election, which raised concerns about the potential for a protectionist turn in US trade policy which could negatively impact EM economies. These concerns, along with rising expectations for US growth, inflation and rates, have turned the tables on flows into EMD. Since the election, flows have reversed. As of the end of the period, the markets seemed to be in “wait-and-see” mode, looking for evidence to either confirm or refute the repricing of risk that has occurred since Election Day.

While US Treasury yields finished slightly higher relative to where they started the reporting period, Treasuries experienced significant volatility during that time. According to data from the Fed, 10-year US Treasury yields started the reporting period at 2.21%, fell to as low as 1.37% in the wake of Brexit and finished the reporting period at 2.37%.

A significant portion of the increase in yields occurred in the wake of the results of the US presidential election, as President-elect Donald Trump and Republicans, who remained in control of both houses of Congress, discussed the prospects for greater-than-expected fiscal stimulus. The prospects for fiscal stimulus raised the possibility of stronger growth and higher inflation in the near-to-medium-term, which pushed Treasury yields higher.

The municipal bond market also saw an increase in yields post-election, with the market underperforming Treasuries for a while before recovering due to increased demand for higher-quality municipal securities from non-traditional municipal investors, also called crossover buyers. Amid the volatile yield environment, the broader US investment grade municipal bond market provided slightly negative total returns during the period, as measured by the Bloomberg Barclays Municipal Bond Index, however mid-quality investment grade and below-investment grade municipal bonds performed slightly better than the highest-quality portion of the market. Investment grade municipal bonds generally lagged taxable bonds amid a strong recovery in credit spreads in areas such as investment grade and high yield corporate debt during the first-half of the reporting period and resilient spreads in the second-half of the period.

Municipal market performance was generally the result of higher yields and increased issuance, especially later in the reporting period, with declining demand. Against this backdrop, generally fundamentals remained stable for the majority of municipal issuers, and as a result, tax-equivalent yields appeared attractive relative to overall credit quality. However, markets remain concerned about underfunded public employee pension systems and other benefits promised to public employees and the political difficulties in enacting reform.

Factors Affecting Performance

Relative to the Bloomberg Barclays Municipal Bond Index, strong bond selection in bonds rated^(r) “AA” and “CCC & Below” was a primary contributor to relative performance. Positive bond selection in the education and transportation sectors also

Management Review – continued

benefited relative performance. A greater exposure to the credit enhanced sector further supported relative performance. The fund’s shorter duration^(d) stance relative to the benchmark also aided relative returns.

Conversely, selection within bonds rated “A” and “AAA” dampened relative returns. The fund employs leverage which has been created through the issuance of variable rate municipal term preferred shares. To the extent that investments are purchased through the use of leverage, the fund’s net asset value will increase or decrease at a greater rate than a comparable unleveraged fund. During the reporting period, the fund’s leverage positively impacted performance.

Respectfully,


Michael Dawson		Geoffrey Schechter
Portfolio Manager		Portfolio Manager

(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.

(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.

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 11/30/16

The following chart presents 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 California Municipal Fund

Date

Price

Year Ended 11/30/16

Net Asset Value

11/30/16

$12.04

11/30/15

$12.63

NYSE MKT Price

11/30/16

$11.36

8/09/16

(high) (t)

$14.50

11/25/16

(low) (t)

$11.21

11/30/15

$11.72

Total Returns vs Benchmark



Year Ended 11/30/16	MFS California Municipal Fund at
	NYSE MKT Price (r)	1.57%
	Net Asset Value (r)	(0.10)%
	Bloomberg Barclays Municipal Bond Index (f)	(0.22)%

(f)	Source: FactSet Research Systems Inc.

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

(t)	For the period December 1, 2015 through November 30, 2016.

Benchmark Definition

Bloomberg Barclays Municipal Bond Index (formerly Barclays Municipal Bond Index) – a market capitalization-weighted index that measures the performance of the tax-exempt bond market.

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. 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 concurrent liquidation.

Performance Summary – continued

The fund’s monthly distributions may include a return of capital to shareholders to the extent that distributions are in excess of the fund’s net investment income and net capital gains, determined in accordance with federal income tax regulations. 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. Returns of shareholder capital have the effect of reducing the fund’s assets and increasing the fund’s expense ratio.

Net asset values and performance results based on net asset value 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 common and/or preferred 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


Portfolio Manager	Primary Role	Since	Title and Five Year History
Michael Dawson	Portfolio Manager	2007	Investment Officer of MFS; employed in the investment management area of MFS since 1998.

Geoffrey Schechter	Portfolio Manager	2007	Investment Officer of MFS; employed in the investment management area of MFS since 1993.

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 NYSE MKT 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.

If your shares are held directly with the Plan Agent, you may withdraw from the Plan at any time by going to the Plan Agent’s website at www.computershare.com/investor, 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/investor, or by writing to the Plan Agent at P.O. Box 43078, Providence, RI 02940-3078.

PORTFOLIO OF INVESTMENTS

11/30/16

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


Municipal Bonds - 167.9%
Issuer	Shares/Par		Value ($)
Airport Revenue - 9.1%
Los Angeles, CA, Department of Airports Rev. (Los Angeles International), “C”, BHAC, 5.25%, 5/15/2038 (Prerefunded 5/15/2018)	$	750,000	$	794,621
Orange County, CA, Airport Rev., “A”, 5%, 7/01/2031		190,000		203,845
San Diego County, CA, Regional Airport Authority Rev., “A”, 5%, 7/01/2021		500,000		555,600
San Diego County, CA, Regional Airport Authority Rev., “A”, 5%, 7/01/2043		500,000		539,185
San Francisco, CA, City & County Airports Commission, International Airport Rev., “A”, 5%, 5/01/2030		285,000		309,692
San Francisco, CA, City & County Airports Commission, International Airport Rev., “A”, 5%, 5/01/2031		150,000		162,246
San Jose, CA, Airport Rev., “A-2”, 5.25%, 3/01/2034		440,000		483,723

			$	3,048,912
General Obligations - General Purpose - 9.6%
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, “A”, NATL, 5.5%, 7/01/2020	$	165,000	$	179,743
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Public Improvement Refunding, “A-4”, AGM, 5%, 7/01/2031		40,000		41,356
Puerto Rico Public Buildings Authority Rev., “H”, AMBAC, 5.5%, 7/01/2017		140,000		142,582
Puerto Rico Public Buildings Authority Rev., “H”, AMBAC, 5.5%, 7/01/2018		125,000		130,694
Puerto Rico Public Buildings Authority Rev., “M-2”, AMBAC, 5.5%, 7/01/2035 (Put Date 7/01/2017)		30,000		30,453
State of California, AMBAC, 6%, 2/01/2017		1,000,000		1,008,830
State of California, 5.25%, 4/01/2035		455,000		513,490
State of California, 5.5%, 3/01/2040		630,000		695,772
State of California, 5.25%, 11/01/2040		415,000		461,584

			$	3,204,504
General Obligations - Schools - 30.0%
Alhambra, CA, Unified School District, “B”, ASSD GTY, 5.25%, 8/01/2028 (Prerefunded 8/01/2019)	$	500,000	$	549,885
Banning, CA, Unified School District (Election of 2006), “B”, ASSD GTY, 5.25%, 8/01/2033 (Prerefunded 8/01/2018)		500,000		533,805
Beaumont, CA, Unified School District (Election of 2008), Capital Appreciation, “C”, AGM, 0%, 8/01/2040		955,000		317,117
Beaumont, CA, Unified School District (Election of 2008), Capital Appreciation, “C”, AGM, 0%, 8/01/2044		1,000,000		272,960

Portfolio of Investments – continued


Issuer	Shares/Par		Value ($)
Municipal Bonds - continued
General Obligations - Schools - continued
Folsom Cordova, CA, Unified School District (Election of 2012), “A”, 5%, 10/01/2038	$	535,000	$	590,233
Lake Tahoe, CA, Unified School District (Election of 2008), Capital Appreciation, AGM, 0%, 8/01/2045		515,000		296,249
Mendocino Lake, CA, Community College District Rev. (Election of 2006), Capital Appreciation, “B”, AGM, 0%, 8/01/2032		330,000		171,524
Montebello, CA, Unified School District (Election of 2004), “A-1”, ASSD GTY, 5.25%, 8/01/2034 (Prerefunded 8/01/2019)		355,000		390,418
Mount San Antonio, CA, Community College District Rev. (Election of 2008), Convertible Capital Appreciation, 0% to 8/01/2028, 6.25% to 8/01/2043		855,000		610,196
Napa Valley, CA, Unified School District, 5%, 8/01/2020		225,000		251,213
Oakland, CA, Unified School District Rev., AGM, 5%, 8/01/2028		170,000		197,010
Oakland, CA, Unified School District Rev., AGM, 5%, 8/01/2030		170,000		194,244
Pittsburg, CA, Unified School District, “B”, AGM, 5.5%, 8/01/2034		500,000		531,215
Pomona, CA, Unified School District, “A”, NATL, 6.55%, 8/01/2029		1,000,000		1,262,650
San Diego, CA, Community College (Election of 2002), 5.25%, 8/01/2033 (Prerefunded 8/01/2019)		125,000		137,471
San Diego, CA, Unified School District (Election of 2008), Capital Appreciation, “G”, 0%, 7/01/2034		265,000		115,667
San Joaquin, CA, Delta Community College District (Election of 2004), Capital Appreciation, “B”, AGM, 0%, 8/01/2018		400,000		389,552
San Jose, CA, Evergreen Community College District (Election of 2010), “A”, 5%, 8/01/2041		265,000		295,260
Santee, CA, School District (Election of 2006), Capital Appreciation, “D”, ASSD GTY, 0%, 8/01/2043		765,000		214,231
Vallejo City, CA, Unified School District, “A”, NATL, 5.9%, 8/01/2025		500,000		580,685
Victor, CA, Elementary School District (Election of 2008), “A”, ASSD GTY, 5.125%, 8/01/2034 (Prerefunded 8/01/2019)		500,000		548,670
Washington, CA, Yolo County Unified School District (New High School Project), 5%, 8/01/2021		450,000		460,206
West Contra Costa, CA, Unified School District, “A”, NATL, 5.7%, 2/01/2023		500,000		591,030
West Covina, CA, Unified School District, “A”, NATL, 5.8%, 2/01/2021		500,000		572,135

			$	10,073,626
Healthcare Revenue - Hospitals - 26.4%
ABAG Finance Authority for Non-Profit Corps., CA, Rev. (Sharp Healthcare), 6.25%, 8/01/2039	$	505,000	$	557,172
ABAG Finance Authority for Non-Profit Corps., CA, Rev. (Sharp Healthcare), “A”, 5%, 8/01/2026		110,000		122,371
California Health Facilities Financing Authority Rev. (Memorial Health Services), “A”, 5%, 10/01/2033		295,000		325,777

Portfolio of Investments – continued


Issuer	Shares/Par		Value ($)
Municipal Bonds - continued
Healthcare Revenue - Hospitals - continued
California Health Facilities Financing Authority Rev. (Scripps Health), “A”, 5%, 11/15/2032	$	525,000	$	573,542
California Health Facilities Financing Authority Rev. (Scripps Health), “A”, 5%, 11/15/2040		255,000		276,619
California Health Facilities Financing Authority Rev. (Sutter Health), “B”, 5.875%, 8/15/2031		500,000		564,690
California Health Facilities Financing Authority Rev. (Sutter Health), “B”, 5%, 11/15/2035		460,000		504,602
California Municipal Finance Authority Rev. (Northbay Healthcare Group), 5%, 11/01/2028		45,000		48,763
California Municipal Finance Authority Rev. (Northbay Healthcare Group), 5%, 11/01/2029		35,000		37,720
California Municipal Finance Authority Rev. (Northbay Healthcare Group), 5%, 11/01/2044		85,000		88,781
California Municipal Finance Authority Rev. (Northbay Healthcare Group), 5%, 11/01/2030		15,000		16,051
California Municipal Finance Authority Rev. (Northbay Healthcare Group), 5%, 11/01/2035		65,000		68,336
California Municipal Finance Authority, COP (Community Hospitals of Central California), 5.25%, 2/01/2027 (Prerefunded 2/01/2017)		105,000		105,768
California Municipal Finance Authority, COP (Community Hospitals of Central California), 5.25%, 2/01/2027		145,000		145,673
California Statewide Communities Development Authority Rev. (Adventist), ASSD GTY, 5%, 3/01/2037 (Prerefunded 5/23/2018)		495,000		521,270
California Statewide Communities Development Authority Rev. (Catholic Healthcare West), “K”, ASSD GTY, 5.5%, 7/01/2041		1,000,000		1,017,740
California Statewide Communities Development Authority Rev. (Enloe Medical Center), “A”, CALHF, 5.5%, 8/15/2023		500,000		533,760
California Statewide Communities Development Authority Rev. (Kaiser Permanente), “A”, 5%, 4/01/2042		455,000		496,965
California Statewide Communities Development Authority Rev. (Loma Linda University Medical Center), “A”, 5.5%, 12/01/2054		350,000		358,642
California Statewide Communities Development Authority Rev. (Redlands Community Hospital), 5%, 10/01/2046		350,000		366,601
California Statewide Communities Development Authority Rev. (Santa Ynez Valley Cottage Hospital), 5.25%, 11/01/2030		260,000		282,979
California Statewide Communities Development Authority Rev. (Sutter Health), “A”, 5%, 8/15/2032		610,000		674,215
California Statewide Communities Development Authority Rev. (Trinity Health Corp.), 5%, 12/01/2041		450,000		494,375
Santa Clara County, CA, Financing Authority Rev. (El Camino Hospital), AMBAC, 5.125%, 2/01/2041 (Prerefunded 8/01/2017)		400,000		411,292

Portfolio of Investments – continued


Issuer	Shares/Par		Value ($)
Municipal Bonds - continued
Healthcare Revenue - Hospitals - continued
Upland, CA, COP (San Antonio Community Hospital), 6.375%, 1/01/2032	$	250,000	$	278,850

			$	8,872,554
Healthcare Revenue - Long Term Care - 4.1%
ABAG Finance Authority for Non-Profit Corps., CA, Rev. (Episcopal Senior Communities), 6.125%, 7/01/2041	$	150,000	$	163,557
ABAG Finance Authority for Non-Profit Corps., CA, Rev. (Eskaton Properties, Inc.), 5%, 11/15/2035		230,000		239,729
California Statewide Communities Development Authority Rev. (899 Charleston Project), “A”, 5.25%, 11/01/2044		295,000		307,001
California Statewide Communities Development Authority Rev. (Episcopal Communities & Services for Seniors Obligated Group), 5%, 5/15/2047		315,000		329,676
Los Angeles County, CA, Regional Financing Authority Rev. (Montecedro Inc. Project), “A”, CALHF, 5%, 11/15/2044		300,000		329,421

			$	1,369,384
Industrial Revenue - Other - 1.7%
New York Liberty Development Corp. Rev. (Goldman Sachs Headquarters), 5.25%, 10/01/2035	$	485,000	$	566,068

Miscellaneous Revenue - Other - 5.0%
ABAG Finance Authority for Non-Profit Corps., CA, Rev. (Jackson Lab), 5%, 7/01/2037	$	400,000	$	429,144
California Infrastructure & Economic Development Bank Rev. (Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences Obligated Group), “A”, 5%, 11/01/2030		235,000		266,521
California Infrastructure & Economic Development Bank Rev. (Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences Obligated Group), “A”, 5%, 11/01/2034		170,000		190,534
California Infrastructure & Economic Development Bank Rev. (Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences Obligated Group), “A”, 5%, 11/01/2035		170,000		189,525
California Infrastructure & Economic Development Bank Rev. (Walt Disney Family Museum), 5.25%, 2/01/2033 (Prerefunded 2/01/2018)		160,000		167,794
California Statewide Communities Development Authority Rev. (Buck Institute for Research on Aging), AGM, 5%, 11/15/2044		385,000		422,842

			$	1,666,360
Port Revenue - 5.7%
Alameda, CA, Corridor Transportation Authority Second Subordinate Lien Rev., “B”, AGM, 5%, 10/01/2036	$	310,000	$	341,614

Portfolio of Investments – continued


Issuer	Shares/Par		Value ($)
Municipal Bonds - continued
Port Revenue - continued
Alameda, CA, Corridor Transportation Authority Second Subordinate Lien Rev., “B”, 5%, 10/01/2037	$	470,000	$	502,360
Port of Oakland, CA, Rev., “P”, 5%, 5/01/2033		1,000,000		1,082,160

			$	1,926,134
Sales & Excise Tax Revenue - 1.3%
California Economic Recovery, “A”, 5%, 7/01/2020 (Prerefunded 7/01/2019)	$	250,000	$	272,778
Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corp., Sales Tax Rev., “C”, 5%, 8/01/2040		215,000		151,855
Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corp., Sales Tax Rev., Capital Appreciation, “A”, NATL, 0%, 8/01/2042		120,000		28,144

			$	452,777
Secondary Schools - 2.1%
California School Finance Authority, Charter School Rev. (Aspire Public Schools - Obligated Group), 5%, 8/01/2040	$	85,000	$	88,080
California School Finance Authority, Charter School Rev. (Aspire Public Schools - Obligated Group), 5%, 8/01/2045		85,000		87,710
California School Finance Authority, School Facility Rev. (Alliance for College-Ready Public Schools Projects), “A”, 5%, 7/01/2030		255,000		272,031
California Statewide Communities Development Authority, School Facility Rev. (Alliance for College-Ready Public Schools), “A”, 6.375%, 7/01/2047		230,000		252,167

			$	699,988
Single Family Housing - State - 3.0%
California Housing Finance Agency Rev. (Home Mortgage), “E”, 4.75%, 2/01/2030	$	305,000	$	306,613
California Housing Finance Agency Rev. (Home Mortgage), “K”, 5.3%, 8/01/2023		175,000		176,570
California Housing Finance Agency Rev. (Home Mortgage), “L”, 5.45%, 8/01/2033		505,000		522,190

			$	1,005,373
State & Agency - Other - 1.5%
Sacramento County, CA, Public Facilities Project, COP, AMBAC, 4.75%, 10/01/2027	$	500,000	$	500,345

State & Local Agencies - 12.2%
California Public Works Board Lease Rev. (Judicial Council Projects), “A”, 5%, 3/01/2028	$	380,000	$	429,537
California Public Works Board Lease Rev. (New Stockton Courthouse), “B”, 5%, 10/01/2033		275,000		308,652

Portfolio of Investments – continued


Issuer	Shares/Par		Value ($)
Municipal Bonds - continued
State & Local Agencies - continued
Los Angeles County, CA, Schools Regionalized Business Service Corp., Pooled Financing, Capital Appreciation, “A”, AMBAC, 0%, 8/01/2018	$	2,020,000	$	1,949,522
Los Angeles County, CA, Schools Regionalized Business Service Corp., Pooled Financing, Capital Appreciation, “A”, AMBAC, 0%, 8/01/2023		1,220,000		991,421
Los Angeles, CA, Municipal Improvement Corp. Lease Rev., “B”, ASSD GTY, 5.5%, 4/01/2030 (Prerefunded 4/01/2019)		390,000		426,286

			$	4,105,418
Tax - Other - 1.4%
Puerto Rico Convention Center District Authority, Hotel Occupancy Tax Rev., “A”, AMBAC, 5%, 7/01/2031	$	65,000	$	64,071
Puerto Rico Infrastructure Financing Authority Special Tax Rev., “C”, AMBAC, 5.5%, 7/01/2024		105,000		110,989
Puerto Rico Infrastructure Financing Authority Special Tax Rev., “C”, AMBAC, 5.5%, 7/01/2026		80,000		84,227
Puerto Rico Infrastructure Financing Authority Special Tax Rev., “C”, AMBAC, 5.5%, 7/01/2027		210,000		221,813

			$	481,100
Tax Assessment - 11.6%
Fontana, CA, Public Finance Authority, Tax Allocation Rev. (Sub Lien North Fontana Redevelopment), “A”, AMBAC, 5%, 10/01/2029	$	1,000,000	$	1,003,110
Huntington Park, CA, Public Financing Authority Rev., “A”, AGM, 5.25%, 9/01/2019		500,000		501,770
North Natomas, CA, Community Facilities District Special Tax, “4-E”, 5.25%, 9/01/2033		160,000		176,499
Riverside County, CA, Jurupa Valley Redevelopment Project Rev., “B”, AGM, 5%, 10/01/2030		190,000		211,339
Riverside County, CA, Jurupa Valley Redevelopment Project Rev., “B”, AGM, 5%, 10/01/2031		225,000		252,086
Riverside County, CA, Redevelopment Agency, Tax Allocation, “A”, AGM, 5%, 10/01/2034		295,000		324,447
San Diego, CA, Redevelopment Agency, Tax Allocation (Centre City), “A”, AMBAC, 5.25%, 9/01/2025		500,000		501,720
San Dieguito, CA, Public Facilities Authority, ‘‘A’’, AMBAC, 5%, 8/01/2032		500,000		522,645
San Francisco, CA, City & County Redevelopment Successor Agency, Community Facilities District No. 6 (Mission Bay South Public Improvements), “A”, 5%, 8/01/2033		130,000		137,509
San Francisco, CA, City & County Redevelopment Successor Agency, Tax Allocation (Mission Bay South Redevelopment Project), “A”, 5%, 8/01/2043		250,000		268,750

			$	3,899,875

Portfolio of Investments – continued


Issuer	Shares/Par		Value ($)
Municipal Bonds - continued
Tobacco - 4.5%
Golden State, CA, Tobacco Securitization Corp., Tobacco Settlement Rev., “A-1”, 5.125%, 6/01/2047	$	1,000,000	$	852,450
Golden State, CA, Tobacco Securitization Corp., Tobacco Settlement Rev., “A-1”, 5.75%, 6/01/2047		715,000		649,828

			$	1,502,278
Toll Roads - 1.1%
Riverside County, CA, Transportation Commission, Toll Rev., “A”, 5.75%, 6/01/2044	$	320,000	$	354,102

Transportation - Special Tax - 2.2%
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Highway & Transportation Authority Rev., “D”, AGM, 5%, 7/01/2032	$	55,000	$	55,554
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Highway & Transportation Authority Rev., “J”, NATL, 5%, 7/01/2029		10,000		10,007
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Highway & Transportation Authority Rev., “L”, NATL, 5.25%, 7/01/2035		25,000		26,995
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Highway & Transportation Authority Rev., “L”, AMBAC, 5.25%, 7/01/2038		230,000		242,662
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Highway & Transportation Authority Rev., “N”, NATL, 5.25%, 7/01/2032		35,000		38,015
San Francisco, CA, Municipal Transportation Agency Rev., “B”, 5%, 3/01/2037		335,000		371,220

			$	744,453
Universities - Colleges - 6.1%
California Educational Facilities Authority Rev. (Dominican University of California), 5%, 12/01/2025	$	120,000	$	120,343
California Educational Facilities Authority Rev. (University of San Francisco), 6.125%, 10/01/2030		285,000		334,185
California Municipal Finance Authority Rev. (Azusa Pacific University Project), “B”, 5%, 4/01/2035		345,000		361,995
California Public Works Board Lease Rev. (The Regents of the University of California), 5%, 12/01/2028 (Prerefunded 12/01/2021)		375,000		429,776
California State University Rev., “A”, 5%, 11/01/2024		370,000		417,645
California State University Rev., “A”, 5%, 11/01/2030		270,000		306,177
Puerto Rico Industrial, Tourist, Educational, Medical & Environmental Control Facilities Financing Authority, Educational Facilities Rev. (University Plaza Project), NATL, 5%, 7/01/2033		75,000		75,228

			$	2,045,349
Universities - Dormitories - 0.8%
California Municipal Finance Authority, Student Housing Rev. (Bowles Hall Foundation) “A”, 5%, 6/01/2035	$	25,000	$	26,163

Portfolio of Investments – continued


Issuer	Shares/Par		Value ($)
Municipal Bonds - continued
Universities - Dormitories - continued
California Statewide Communities Development Authority Rev. (Lancer Plaza Project), 5.875%, 11/01/2043	$	230,000	$	232,721

			$	258,884
Utilities - Cogeneration - 0.7%
California Pollution Control Financing Authority, Water Furnishing Rev. (Poseidon Resources Desalination Project), 5%, 11/21/2045	$	150,000	$	159,591
California Pollution Control Financing Authority, Water Furnishing Rev. (San Diego County Water Desalination Project Pipeline), 5%, 11/21/2045		75,000		74,908

			$	234,499
Utilities - Municipal Owned - 7.8%
California Department of Water Resources, Power Supply Rev., “L”, 5%, 5/01/2019	$	305,000	$	330,547
Guam Power Authority Rev., “A”, AGM, 5%, 10/01/2039		50,000		54,102
Guam Power Authority Rev., “A”, AGM, 5%, 10/01/2044		55,000		59,280
Northern California Power Agency, Capital Facilities Rev., “A”, 5.25%, 8/01/2024		390,000		430,412
Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority Rev., “DDD”, AGM, 3.625%, 7/01/2023		10,000		9,916
Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority Rev., “DDD”, AGM, 3.65%, 7/01/2024		55,000		54,495
Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority Rev., “SS”, ASSD GTY, 4.375%, 7/01/2030		5,000		4,987
Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority Rev., “UU”, ASSD GTY, 4.25%, 7/01/2027		40,000		40,190
Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority Rev., “VV”, NATL, 5.25%, 7/01/2032		5,000		5,444
Sacramento, CA, Municipal Utility District Electric Rev., “U”, AGM, 5%, 8/15/2019 (Prerefunded 8/15/2018)		290,000		308,867
Sacramento, CA, Municipal Utility District Electric Rev., “X”, 5%, 8/15/2025 (Prerefunded 8/15/2021)		95,000		108,571
Sacramento, CA, Municipal Utility District Electric Rev., Unrefunded Balance, “U”, AGM, 5%, 8/15/2019		460,000		488,727
Sacramento, CA, Municipal Utility District Electric Rev., Unrefunded Balance, “X”, 5%, 8/15/2025		275,000		310,456
Vernon, CA, Electric System Rev., “A”, 5.5%, 8/01/2041		370,000		404,750

			$	2,610,744
Utilities - Other - 2.9%
California M-S-R Energy Authority Gas Rev., “A”, 6.5%, 11/01/2039	$	245,000	$	315,026
Southern California Public Power Authority (Natural Gas Project No. 1), “A”, 5%, 11/01/2033		585,000		652,573

			$	967,599

Portfolio of Investments – continued


Issuer	Shares/Par		Value ($)
Municipal Bonds - continued
Water & Sewer Utility Revenue - 17.1%
Atwater, CA, Public Financing Authority Wastewater Rev., ASSD GTY, 5%, 5/01/2034	$	500,000	$	516,770
California Department of Water Resources Rev. (Central Valley Project Water System), “AE”, 5%, 12/01/2028 (Prerefunded 6/01/2018)		480,000		507,576
California Department of Water Resources Rev. (Central Valley Project Water System), “AM”, 5%, 12/01/2024		500,000		580,475
California Department of Water Resources Rev., Unrefunded Balance, 5%, 12/01/2028		20,000		21,082
Chino Basin, CA, Regional Financing Authority Rev. (Inland Empire Utilities Agency), “A”, AMBAC, 5%, 11/01/2038		1,000,000		1,030,340
Escondido, CA, Joint Powers Financing Authority Rev. (Water System Financing), 5%, 9/01/2041		460,000		508,314
Guam Waterworks Authority Rev. (Water and Wastewater System), 5%, 7/01/2036		20,000		21,513
Guam Waterworks Authority Rev. (Water and Wastewater System), 5%, 1/01/2046		105,000		112,597
Guam Waterworks Authority Rev. (Water and Wastewater System), “A”, 5%, 7/01/2029		105,000		114,353
Guam Waterworks Authority Rev. (Water and Wastewater System), “A”, 5%, 7/01/2035		105,000		111,668
Madera, CA, Financing Authority, Irrigation Rev., 6.5%, 1/01/2040 (Prerefunded 1/01/2020)		440,000		504,662
Norco, CA, Financing Authority, Enterprise Rev., AGM, 5.625%, 10/01/2039		215,000		233,200
Oxnard, CA, Financing Authority, Wastewater Rev., AGM, 5%, 6/01/2030		340,000		378,376
Oxnard, CA, Financing Authority, Wastewater Rev., AGM, 5%, 6/01/2031		85,000		94,236
Soquel Creek, CA, Water District, COP, 5%, 3/01/2043		370,000		404,821
Tulare, CA, Sewer Rev., AGM, 5%, 11/15/2031		350,000		392,931
Tulare, CA, Sewer Rev., AGM, 5%, 11/15/2035		170,000		188,085

			$	5,720,999
Total Municipal Bonds (Identified Cost, $53,794,073)			$	56,311,325

Money Market Funds - 1.3%
MFS Institutional Money Market Portfolio, 0.46% (v) (Identified Cost, $435,717)		435,717	$	435,717
Total Investments (Identified Cost, $54,229,790)			$	56,747,042

Other Assets, Less Liabilities - 3.5%				1,168,636
VMTPS, at liquidation value of $24,425,000 net of unamortized debt issuance costs of $52,078 (issued by the fund) - (72.7)%				(24,372,922	)
Net Assets applicable to common shares - 100.0%			$	33,542,756

Portfolio of Investments – continued

(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.

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

ARPS

Auction Rate Preferred Shares

COP

Certificate of Participation

VMTPS

Variable Rate Municipal Term Preferred Shares


Insurers
AGM		Assured Guaranty Municipal
AMBAC		AMBAC Indemnity Corp.
ASSD GTY		Assured Guaranty Insurance Co.
BHAC		Berkshire Hathaway Assurance Corp.
CALHF		California Health Facility Construction Loan Insurance Program
NATL		National Public Finance Guarantee Corp.

Derivative Contracts at 11/30/16

Futures Contracts at 11/30/16

Description

Currency

Contracts

Value

Expiration
Date

Unrealized
Appreciation
(Depreciation)

Asset Derivatives

Interest Rate Futures

U.S. Treasury Note 10 yr (Short)

USD

$2,490,313

March - 2017

$5,865

At November 30, 2016, the fund had cash collateral of $29,000 to cover any commitments for certain derivative contracts. Cash collateral is comprised of “Deposits with brokers” on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

See Notes to Financial Statements

Financial Statements

STATEMENT OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES

At 11/30/16

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, $53,794,073)	$56,311,325
Underlying affiliated funds, at value (identified cost, $435,717)	435,717
Total investments, at value (identified cost, $54,229,790)	$56,747,042
Deposits with brokers	29,000
Receivables for
Daily variation margin on open futures contracts	11,876
Investments sold	553,628
Interest	677,725
Receivable from investment adviser	10,805
Other assets	1,211
Total assets	$58,031,287
Liabilities
Payables for
Distributions on common shares	$286
Interest expense	34,188
Payable to affiliates
Transfer agent and dividend disbursing costs	3
Payable for independent Trustees’ compensation	14
Accrued expenses and other liabilities	81,118
VMTPS, at liquidation value of $24,425,000 net of unamortized debt issuance costs of $52,078	24,372,922
Total liabilities	$24,488,531
Net assets applicable to common shares	$33,542,756
Net assets consist of
Paid-in capital - common shares	$35,238,011
Unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on investments	2,523,117
Accumulated net realized gain (loss) on investments	(4,291,447	)
Undistributed net investment income	73,075
Net assets applicable to common shares	$33,542,756
VMTPS, at liquidation value of $24,425,000 net of unamortized debt issuance costs of $52,078 (977 shares of Series 2019/3 issued and outstanding at $25,000 per share)	24,372,922
Net assets including preferred shares	$57,915,678
Common shares of beneficial interest issued and outstanding	2,786,275
Net asset value per common share (net assets of $33,542,756 / 2,786,275 shares of beneficial interest outstanding)	$12.04

See Notes to Financial Statements

Financial Statements

STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS

Year ended 11/30/16

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	$2,613,385
Dividends from underlying affiliated funds	1,762
Total investment income	$2,615,147
Expenses
Management fee	$394,685
Transfer agent and dividend disbursing costs	5,410
Administrative services fee	19,163
Independent Trustees’ compensation	11,193
Stock exchange fee	15,006
Custodian fee	6,406
Shareholder communications	17,922
Audit and tax fees	78,655
Legal fees	7,869
Interest expense and amortization of VMTPS debt issuance costs	405,855
Miscellaneous	62,671
Total expenses	$1,024,835
Reduction of expenses by investment adviser	(132,931	)
Net expenses	$891,904
Net investment income	$1,723,243
Realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments
Realized gain (loss) (identified cost basis)
Investments:
Non-affiliated issuers	$32,202
Underlying affiliated funds	1
Futures contracts	(71,272	)
Net realized gain (loss) on investments	$(39,069	)
Change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation)
Investments	$(1,702,526	)
Futures contracts	7,366
Net unrealized gain (loss) on investments	$(1,695,160	)
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments	$(1,734,229	)
Change in net assets from operations	$(10,986	)

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 11/30
	2016			2015
Change in net assets
From operations
Net investment income		$1,723,243			$1,872,393
Net realized gain (loss) on investments		(39,069	)		(12,464	)
Net unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(1,695,160	)		96,996
Change in net assets from operations		$(10,986	)		$1,956,925
Distributions declared to common shareholders
From net investment income		$(1,648,053	)		$(1,724,681	)
Share transactions applicable to common and preferred shares
Net asset value of shares issued to common shareholders in reinvestment of distributions		$493			$—
Total change in net assets		$(1,658,546	)		$232,244
Net assets applicable to common shares
At beginning of period		35,201,302			34,969,058
At end of period (including undistributed net investment income of $73,075 and $62,964, respectively)		$33,542,756			$35,201,302

See Notes to Financial Statements

Financial Statements

STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS

Year ended 11/30/16

This statement provides a summary of cash flows from investment activity for the fund.


Cash flows from operating activities:
Change in net assets from operations	$(10,986	)
Adjustments to reconcile change in net assets from operations to net cash provided by operating activities:
Purchase of investment securities	(4,987,185	)
Proceeds from disposition of investment securities	5,288,647
Purchases of short-term investments, net	(193,709	)
Realized gain/loss on investments	(32,203	)
Unrealized appreciation/depreciation on investments	1,702,526
Net amortization/accretion of income	(95,643	)
Amortization of VMTPS debt issuance costs	28,829
Decrease in interest receivable	10,641
Increase in accrued expenses and other liabilities	814
Increase in receivable from investment adviser	(2,631	)
Increase in receivable for daily variation margin on open futures contracts	(11,095	)
Decrease in deposits with brokers	8,200
Decrease in other assets	36
Increase in payable for interest expense	8,903
Net cash provided by operating activities	$1,715,144
Cash flows from financing activities:
Payment of VMTPS debt issuance costs	(67,500	)
Cash receipts from issuance of Series 2019 VMTPS, at liquidation value	24,425,000
Cash payments to repurchase Series 2016 VMTPS	(24,425,000	)
Cash distributions paid on common shares	(1,647,644	)
Net cash used by financing activities	$(1,715,144	)
Cash:
Beginning of period	$—
End of period	$—

Supplemental disclosure of cash flow information:

Non-cash financing activities not included herein consist of reinvestment of dividends and distributions of $493.

Cash paid during the year ended November 30, 2016 for interest was $368,123.

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.


Common Shares	Years ended 11/30
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net asset value, beginning of period		$12.63			$12.55			$11.32			$13.03			$10.71
Income (loss) from investment operations
Net investment income (d)		$0.62			$0.67			$0.64			$0.66			$0.70
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.62	)		0.03			1.22			(1.75	)		1.92
Distributions declared to shareholders of ARPS		—			—			—			—			(0.02	)
Total from investment operations		$(0.00	)		$0.70			$1.86			$(1.09	)		$2.60
Less distributions declared to common shareholders
From net investment income		$(0.59	)		$(0.62	)		$(0.63	)		$(0.62	)		$(0.72	)
Net increase resulting from tender and repurchase of ARPS		$—			$—			$—			$—			$0.44
Net asset value, end of period (x)		$12.04			$12.63			$12.55			$11.32			$13.03
Market value, end of period		$11.36			$11.72			$10.91			$9.76			$12.71
Total return at market value (%) (p)		1.57			13.45			18.45			(18.83	)		22.84
Total return at net asset value (%) (j)(r)(s)(x)		(0.10	)		6.28			17.48			(8.17	)		29.22(y	)
Ratios (%) (to average net assets applicable to common shares) and Supplemental data:
Expenses before expense reductions (f)(p)		2.82			2.67			2.75			2.70			2.40
Expenses after expense reductions (f)(p)		2.46			2.30			2.38			2.42			1.94
Net investment income (p)		4.75			5.34			5.32			5.47			5.88
Portfolio turnover		6			11			17			12			19
Net assets at end of period (000 omitted)		$33,543			$35,201			$34,969			$31,554			$36,309
Supplemental Ratios (%):
Ratio of expenses to average net assets applicable to common shares after expense reductions and excluding interest expense and fees (f)(l)(p)		1.34			1.41			1.43			1.43			1.40
Ratio of expenses to average net assets applicable to common shares, ARPS, and VMTPS after expense reductions and excluding interest expense and fees (f)(l)(p)		0.80			0.83			0.83			0.83			0.81
Net investment income available to common shares		4.75			5.34			5.32			5.47			5.73

Financial Highlights – continued


	Years ended 11/30
	2016		2015		2014		2013		2012
Senior Securities:
VMTPS		977		977		977		977		977
Asset coverage per preferred share (k)		$59,279		$61,030		$60,792		$57,296		$62,164
Involuntary liquidation preference per preferred share (m)		$25,000		$25,000		$25,000		$25,000		$25,000
Average market value per preferred share (m)(u)		$25,000		$25,000		$25,000		$25,000		$25,000

(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.

(k)	Calculated by subtracting the fund’s total liabilities (not including liquidation preference of VMTPS) from the fund’s total assets and dividing this number by the total number of preferred shares outstanding.

(l)

Interest expense and fees relate to payments made to the holders of the floating rate certificates from trust assets and interest expense paid to shareholders of VMTPS. For the year ended November 30, 2012, the expense ratio also excludes fees and expenses related to the tender and repurchase of the fund’s ARPS. For the year ended November 30, 2016, the expense ratio also excludes amortization of VMTPS debt issuance costs.

(m)	Amount excludes accrued interest on VMTPS.

(p)	For the year ended November 30, 2012, the ratio excludes dividend payments on ARPS.

(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.

(u)	Average market value represents the approximate fair value of each of the fund’s VMTPS.

(x)	The net asset values and total returns at net asset value 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.

(y)

Included in the total return at net asset value for the year ended November 30, 2012 is the impact of the tender and repurchase by the fund of a portion of its ARPS at 95% of the ARPS’ per share liquidation preference. Had this transaction not occurred, the total return at net asset value for the year ended November 30, 2012 would have been lower by 3.34%.

See Notes to Financial Statements

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(1) Business and Organization

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

The fund is an investment company and accordingly follows the investment company accounting and reporting guidance of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Accounting Standards Codification Topic 946 Financial Services – Investment Companies.

(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 primarily in municipal instruments. The value of municipal instruments can be affected by changes in their actual or perceived credit quality. The credit quality of municipal instruments can be affected by, among other things, the financial condition of the issuer or guarantor, the issuer’s future borrowing plans and sources of revenue, the economic feasibility of the revenue bond project or general borrowing purpose, political or economic developments in the region where the instrument is issued and the liquidity of the security. Municipal instruments generally trade in the over-the-counter market. Municipal instruments backed by current and anticipated revenues from a specific project or specific assets can be negatively affected by the discontinuance of the taxation supporting the projects or assets or the inability to collect revenues for the project or from the assets. If the Internal Revenue Service determines an issuer of a municipal instrument has not complied with the applicable tax requirements, interest from the security could become taxable, the security could decline in value, and distributions made by the fund could be taxable to shareholders.

On March 24, 2016, the fund adopted the accounting provisions of FASB Accounting Standards Update 2015-03 (“ASU 2015-03”), Interest – Imputation of Interest (Topic 835-30) – Simplifying the Presentation of Debt Issuance Costs which resulted in a change in accounting principle. Under ASU 2015-03, debt issuance costs are required to be presented as a direct deduction from the carrying amount of the related debt liability. Prior to the fund’s adoption of ASU 2015-03, debt issuance costs were deferred and presented as an asset.

In October 2016, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) released its Final Rule on Investment Company Reporting Modernization (the “Rule”). The Rule, which introduces two new regulatory reporting forms for investment companies – Form N-PORT and Form N-CEN – also contains amendments to Regulation S-X which impact

Notes to Financial Statements – continued

financial statement presentation, particularly the presentation of derivative investments. Although still evaluating the impacts of the Rule, management believes that many of the Regulation S-X amendments are consistent with the fund’s current financial statement presentation and expects that the fund will be able to comply with the Rule’s Regulation S-X amendments by the August 1, 2017 compliance date.

In November 2016, FASB issued Accounting Standards Update 2016-18, Statement of Cash Flows (Topic 230) – Restricted Cash (“ASU 2016-18”). For entities that have restricted cash and are required to present a statement of cash flows, ASU 2016-18 changes the cash flow presentation for restricted cash. Although still evaluating the potential impacts of ASU 2016-18, management expects that the effects of the fund’s adoption will be limited to the reclassification of restricted cash on the fund’s Statement of Cash Flows and the addition of disclosures regarding the nature of the restrictions on restricted cash. ASU 2016-18 would first be effective for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2017, and interim periods within those annual periods.

Balance Sheet Offsetting – 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 International Swaps and Derivatives Association (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. The fund’s right to setoff may be restricted or prohibited by the bankruptcy or insolvency laws of the particular jurisdiction to which a specific master netting agreement counterparty is subject. Balance sheet offsetting disclosures, to the extent applicable to the fund, have been included in the fund’s Significant Accounting Policies note under the captions for each of the fund’s in-scope financial instruments and transactions.

Investment Valuations – Debt instruments and floating rate loans, including restricted debt instruments, are generally valued at 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 may be valued at amortized cost, which approximates market value. Futures contracts are generally valued at last posted settlement price on their primary exchange as provided by a third-party pricing service. Futures contracts for which there were no trades that day for a particular position are generally valued at the closing bid quotation on their primary exchange as provided by a third-party pricing service. 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 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

Notes to Financial Statements – continued

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.

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. The following is a summary of the levels used as of November 30, 2016 in valuing the fund’s assets or liabilities:


Investments at Value	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Municipal Bonds		$—		$56,311,325		$—		$56,311,325
Mutual Funds		435,717		—		—		435,717
Total Investments		$435,717		$56,311,325		$—		$56,747,042

Other Financial Instruments
Futures Contracts		$5,865		$—		$—		$5,865

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

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 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. 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 November 30, 2016 as reported in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities:


		Fair Value (a)
Risk	Derivative Contracts	Asset Derivatives
Interest Rate	Interest Rate Futures		$5,865

(a)	The value of futures contracts includes cumulative appreciation (depreciation) as reported in the fund’s Portfolio of Investments. Only the current day net 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 November 30, 2016 as reported in the Statement of Operations:


Risk	Futures Contracts
Interest Rate		$(71,272	)

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 November 30, 2016 as reported in the Statement of Operations:


Risk	Futures Contracts
Interest Rate		$7,366

Derivative counterparty credit risk is managed through formal evaluation of the creditworthiness of all potential counterparties. On certain, but not all, uncleared derivatives, the fund attempts to reduce its exposure to counterparty credit risk whenever possible by entering into an ISDA Master Agreement on a bilateral basis. 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 agreement 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.

Notes to Financial Statements – continued

Collateral and margin requirements differ by type of derivative. Margin requirements are set by the clearing broker and the clearing house for cleared derivatives (e.g., futures contracts, cleared swaps, and exchange-traded options) while collateral terms are contract specific for uncleared derivatives (e.g., forward foreign currency exchange contracts, uncleared swap agreements, and uncleared options). For derivatives traded under an ISDA Master Agreement, which contains a collateral support annex, 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” or “Deposits with brokers.” Securities pledged as collateral or margin for the same purpose, if any, are noted in the Portfolio of Investments. The fund may be required to make payments of interest on uncovered collateral or margin obligations with the broker. Any such payments are included in interest expense in the Statement of Operations.

Futures Contracts – The fund entered into futures contracts which may be used to hedge against or obtain broad market exposure, interest rate 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 or securities prices moving unexpectedly, in which case, the fund may not achieve the anticipated benefits of the 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.

Statement of Cash Flows – Information on financial transactions which have been settled through the receipt or disbursement of cash is presented in the Statement of Cash Flows. The cash amount shown in the Statement of Cash Flows is the amount included within the fund’s Statement of Assets and Liabilities and includes cash on hand at its custodian bank and does not include any short-term investments.

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.

Notes to Financial Statements – continued

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.

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.

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 and tax-exempt 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. Management has analyzed the fund’s tax positions taken on federal and state tax returns for all open tax years and does not believe that there are any uncertain tax positions that require recognition of a tax liability.

Distributions to shareholders are recorded on the ex-dividend date. 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 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 expiration of capital loss carryforwards, amortization and accretion of debt securities, and non-deductible expenses that result from the treatment of VMTPS as equity for tax purposes.

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


	11/30/16		11/30/15
Ordinary income (including any short-term capital gains)		$7,707		$879
Tax-exempt income		2,017,315		2,037,927
Total distributions		$2,025,022		$2,038,806

Notes to Financial Statements – continued

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


As of 11/30/16
Cost of investments	$53,823,381
Gross appreciation	3,174,301
Gross depreciation	(250,640	)
Net unrealized appreciation (depreciation)	$2,923,661
Undistributed ordinary income	1,607
Undistributed tax-exempt income	105,942
Capital loss carryforwards	(4,691,991	)
Other temporary differences	(34,474	)

Under the Regulated Investment Company Modernization Act of 2010 (the “Act”), net capital losses recognized for fund fiscal years beginning after November 30, 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 November 30, 2016, the fund had capital loss carryforwards available to offset future realized gains as follows:


Pre-enactment losses which expire as follows:
11/30/17	$(3,006,395	)
11/30/18	(696,235	)
11/30/19	(725,457	)
Total	$(4,428,087	)

Post-enactment losses which are characterized as follows:
Short-Term	$(263,904	)

(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 0.65% of the fund’s average daily net assets (including the value of preferred shares).

The investment adviser has agreed in writing to pay a portion of the fund’s total annual operating expenses, excluding interest, taxes, extraordinary expenses, brokerage and transaction costs, and investment-related expenses, such that total fund operating expenses do not exceed 0.80% annually of the fund’s average daily net assets (including the value of preferred shares). This written agreement will continue until modified by the fund’s Board of Trustees, but such agreement will continue at least until November 30, 2017. For the year ended November 30, 2016, this reduction amounted to $132,931, which is included in the reduction of total expenses in the Statement of Operations.

Notes to Financial Statements – continued

Transfer Agent – The fund engages Computershare Trust Company, N.A. (“Computershare”) as the sole transfer agent for the fund’s common shares. 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 November 30, 2016, these fees paid to MFSC amounted to $113.

Administrator – MFS provides certain financial, legal, shareholder communications, compliance, and other administrative services to the fund. Under an administrative services agreement, the fund 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 (including the value of preferred shares). The administrative services fee incurred for the year ended November 30, 2016 was equivalent to an annual effective rate of 0.0316% of the fund’s average daily net assets (including the value of preferred shares).

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.

Other – This fund and certain other funds managed by MFS (the funds) have entered into a service agreement (the ISO Agreement) which provides for payment of fees solely by the funds to Tarantino LLC in return for the provision of services of an Independent Senior Officer (ISO) for the funds. Frank L. Tarantino serves as the ISO and is an officer of the funds and the sole member of Tarantino LLC. The funds can terminate the ISO Agreement with Tarantino LLC at any time under the terms of the ISO Agreement. For the year ended November 30, 2016, the fee paid by the fund under this agreement was $75 and is included in “Miscellaneous” expense in the Statement of Operations. MFS has agreed to bear all expenses associated with office space, other administrative support, and supplies provided to the ISO.

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. This money market fund does not pay a management fee to MFS.

(4) Portfolio Securities

For the year ended November 30, 2016, purchases and sales of investments, other than short-term obligations, aggregated $3,800,997 and $4,271,086, respectively.

Notes to Financial Statements – continued

(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 fund reserves the right to repurchase shares of beneficial interest of the fund subject to Trustee approval. During the years ended November 30, 2016 and November 30, 2015, the fund did not repurchase any shares. Other transactions in fund shares were as follows:

Year ended
11/30/16

Year ended
11/30/15

Shares

Amount

Shares

Amount

Shares issued to shareholders in
reinvestment of distributions

$493

—

$—

(6) Line of Credit

The fund and certain other funds managed by MFS participate in a $1.25 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 Overnight Federal Reserve funds rate or daily 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 Overnight Federal Reserve funds rate plus an agreed upon spread. For the year ended November 30, 2016, the fund’s commitment fee and interest expense were $201 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		242,008		6,353,502		(6,159,793	)		435,717

Underlying Affiliated Fund	Realized Gain (Loss)		Capital Gain Distributions		Dividend Income			Ending Value
MFS Institutional Money Market Portfolio		$1		$—		$1,762			$435,717

(8) Preferred Shares

As of March 23, 2016, the fund had 977 shares issued and outstanding of Variable Rate Municipal Term Preferred Shares, series 2016/9 (Series 2016 VMTPS) with a liquidation preference of $25,000 per share. Subsequent to March 23, 2016, all shares

Notes to Financial Statements – continued

of the Series 2016 VMTPS were redeemed using proceeds from the issuance of a new series of Variable Rate Municipal Term Preferred Shares as further described below.

The Series 2016 VMTPS were a variable rate form of preferred shares with a term redemption date of September 30, 2016 unless extended through negotiation with the private holders of the Series 2016 VMTPS. Dividends were set weekly to a fixed spread against the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) Municipal Swap Index. During the period December 1, 2015 through March 23, 2016, the Series 2016 VMTPS dividend rates ranged from 1.26% to 1.38%. For the period December 1, 2015 through March 23, 2016, the average dividend rate was 1.27%. Dividends paid to the Series 2016 VMTPS were treated as interest expense and recorded as incurred. For the period December 1, 2015 through March 23, 2016, interest expense related to the Series 2016 VMTPS amounted to $97,710 and is included in interest expense in the Statement of Operations.

On March 24, 2016, the fund issued 977 shares of a new series of Variable Rate Municipal Term Preferred Shares (“Series 2019 VMTPS”) in a private offering with an aggregate liquidation preference of $24,425,000. The fund used the proceeds from the sale of its Series 2019 VMTPS to fund the redemption on March 24, 2016 of all of its outstanding Series 2016 VMTPS.

The Series 2019 VMTPS are redeemable at the option of the fund in whole or in part at the liquidation preference of $25,000 per share, plus accumulated and unpaid dividends, but generally solely for the purpose of decreasing the leverage of the fund.

The Series 2019 VMTPS are subject to a mandatory term redemption date of March 31, 2019 unless extended through negotiation with the private holders of the Series 2019 VMTPS. There is no assurance that the term of the Series 2019 VMTPS will be extended or that the Series 2019 VMTPS will be replaced with any other preferred shares or other form of leverage upon the redemption of the Series 2019 VMTPS. Six months prior to the term redemption date of the Series 2019 VMTPS, the fund is required to begin to segregate liquid assets with the fund’s custodian to fund the redemption. Dividends on the Series 2019 VMTPS are cumulative and are set weekly to a fixed spread against the SIFMA Municipal Swap Index. During the period from issuance on March 24, 2016 through November 30, 2016, the Series 2019 VMTPS dividend rates ranged from 1.44% to 2.02%. For the period March 24, 2016 through November 30, 2016, the average dividend rate was 1.66%.

In the fund’s Statement of Assets and Liabilities, the Series 2019 VMTPS aggregate liquidation preference is shown as a liability since they have a stated mandatory redemption date. Dividends paid to the Series 2019 VMTPS are treated as interest expense and recorded as incurred. For the period March 24, 2016 through November 30 2016, interest expense related to the Series 2019 VMTPS amounted to $279,259 and is included in interest expense in the Statement of Operations. Costs directly related to the issuance of the Series 2019 VMTPS are considered debt issuance costs. Debt issuance costs are presented as a direct deduction from the carrying amount of the related debt liability and are being amortized into interest expense over the life of the Series 2019 VMTPS. The period-end carrying value for the Series 2019 VMTPS in the fund’s Statement of Assets and Liabilities is its liquidation value less any unamortized debt issuance costs, which approximates its fair value. Its fair value would be considered level 2 under the fair value hierarchy.

Notes to Financial Statements – continued

Under the terms of a purchase agreement between the fund and the investor in the Series 2019 VMTPS, the fund is subject to various investment restrictions that are substantially similar to those that were in place with respect to the Series 2016 VMTPS. These investment-related requirements are in various respects more restrictive than those to which the fund is otherwise subject in accordance with its investment objectives and policies. In addition, the fund is subject to certain restrictions on its investments imposed by guidelines of the rating agencies that rate the Series 2019 VMTPS, which guidelines may be changed by the applicable rating agency, in its sole discretion, from time to time. These guidelines may impose asset coverage or portfolio composition requirements that are more stringent than those imposed on the fund by the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “1940 Act”).

The fund is required to maintain certain asset coverage with respect to the Series 2019 VMTPS as defined in the fund’s governing documents and the 1940 Act. One of a number of asset coverage-related requirements is that the fund is not permitted to declare or pay common share dividends unless immediately thereafter the fund has a minimum asset coverage ratio of 200% with respect to the Series 2019 VMTPS after deducting the amount of such common share dividends.

The 1940 Act requires that the preferred shareholders of the fund, voting as a separate class, have the right to elect at least two trustees at all times, and elect a majority of the trustees at any time when dividends on the preferred shares are unpaid for two full years. Unless otherwise required by law or under the terms of the preferred shares, each preferred shareholder is entitled to one vote and preferred shareholders will vote together with common shareholders as a single class.

Leverage involves risks and special considerations for the fund’s common shareholders. To the extent that investments are purchased by the fund with proceeds from the issuance of preferred shares, the fund’s net asset value will increase or decrease at a greater rate than a comparable unleveraged fund. Changes in the value of the fund’s portfolio will be borne entirely by the common shareholders. It is possible that the fund will be required to sell assets at a time when it may be disadvantageous to do so in order to redeem preferred shares to comply with asset coverage or other restrictions including those imposed by the 1940 Act and the rating agencies that rate the preferred shares. There is no assurance that the fund’s leveraging strategy will be successful.

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Board of Trustees and Shareholders of MFS California Municipal Fund:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the portfolio of investments, of MFS California Municipal Fund (the Fund) as of November 30, 2016, and the related statements of operations and cash flows 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. We were not engaged to perform an audit of the Fund’s 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 and financial highlights, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, and evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of November 30, 2016, by correspondence with the custodian and others. 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 California Municipal Fund at November 30, 2016, the results of its operations and its cash flows 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 U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

LOGO

Boston, Massachusetts

January 13, 2017

RESULTS OF SHAREHOLDER MEETING

(unaudited)

At the annual meeting of shareholders of MFS California Municipal Fund, which was held on October 6, 2016, the following actions were taken:

Item 1: To elect the following individuals as Trustees, elected by the holders of common and preferred shares together:


	Number of Shares
Nominee	For		Withheld Authority
Maureen R. Goldfarb		2,446,299.000		110,760.000
Robert J. Manning		2,446,299.000		110,760.000
Maryanne L. Roepke		2,446,299.000		110,760.000

Item 2: To elect the following individuals as Trustees, elected by the holders of preferred shares only:


	Number of Shares
Nominee	For		Withheld Authority
John P. Kavanaugh		977		0
Laurie J. Thomsen		977		0

TRUSTEES AND OFFICERS — IDENTIFICATION AND BACKGROUND

The Trustees and Officers of the Trust, as of January 1, 2017, 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^(l)	Principal Occupations During the Past Five Years	Other Directorships^(j)
INTERESTED TRUSTEES
Robert J. Manning^(k) (age 53)	Trustee	February 2004	2019	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Executive Chairman	N/A
Robin A. Stelmach^(k) (age 55)	Trustee	January 2014	2018	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Vice Chair	N/A
INDEPENDENT TRUSTEES
David H. Gunning (age 74)	Trustee and Chair of Trustees	January 2004	2018	Private investor	Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc., Director; Development Alternatives, Inc., Director/Non-Executive Chairman
Steven E. Buller (age 65)	Trustee	February 2014	2017	Chairman, Financial Accounting Standards Advisory Council (until 2015); Standing Advisory Group, Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, Member (until 2014); BlackRock, Inc. (investment management), Managing Director (until 2014), BlackRock Finco UK (investment management), Director (until 2014)	N/A
Maureen R. Goldfarb (age 61)	Trustee	January 2009	2019	Private investor	N/A

Trustees and Officers – continued


Name, Age	Position(s) Held with Fund	Trustee/Officer Since^(h)	Term Expiring^(l)	Principal Occupations During the Past Five Years	Other Directorships^(j)
Michael Hegarty (age 72)	Trustee	December 2004	2017	Private investor	Rouse Properties Inc., Director; Capmark Financial Group Inc., Director (until 2015)
John P. Kavanaugh (age 62)	Trustee and Vice Chair of Trustees	January 2009	2017	Private investor	N/A
Maryanne L. Roepke (age 60)	Trustee	May 2014	2019	American Century Investments (investment management), Senior Vice President and Chief Compliance Officer (until 2014)	N/A
Laurie J. Thomsen (age 59)	Trustee	March 2005	2017	Private investor	The Travelers Companies, Director; Dycom Industries, Inc., Director
OFFICERS
Christopher R. Bohane^(k) (age 42)	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 48)	Assistant Treasurer	January 2012	N/A	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Vice President	N/A
Thomas H. Connors^(k) (age 57)	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 53)	Assistant Secretary and Assistant Clerk	July 2005	N/A	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Senior Vice President and Associate General Counsel	N/A

Trustees and Officers – continued


Name, Age	Position(s) Held with Fund	Trustee/Officer Since^(h)	Term Expiring^(l)	Principal Occupations During the Past Five Years	Other Directorships^(j)
David L. DiLorenzo^(k) (age 48)	President	July 2005	N/A	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Senior Vice President	N/A
Brian E. Langenfeld^(k) (age 43)	Assistant Secretary and Assistant Clerk	June 2006	N/A	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Vice President and Senior Counsel	N/A
Susan A. Pereira^(k) (age 46)	Assistant Secretary and Assistant Clerk	July 2005	N/A	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Vice President and Senior Counsel	N/A
Kasey L. Phillips^(k) (age 46)	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 64)	Secretary and Clerk	January 2006	N/A	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary	N/A
Matthew A. Stowe^(k) (age 42)	Assistant Secretary and Assistant Clerk	October 2014	N/A	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Vice President and Assistant General Counsel	N/A
Frank L. Tarantino (age 72)	Independent Senior Officer	June 2004	N/A	Tarantino LLC (provider of compliance services), Principal	N/A
Richard S. Weitzel^(k) (age 46)	Assistant Secretary and Assistant Clerk	October 2007	N/A	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Senior Vice President and Associate General Counsel	N/A

Trustees and Officers – continued


Name, Age	Position(s) Held with Fund	Trustee/Officer Since^(h)	Term Expiring^(l)	Principal Occupations During the Past Five Years	Other Directorships^(j)
Martin J. Wolin^(k) (age 49)	Chief Compliance Officer	July 2015	N/A	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Senior Vice President and Chief Compliance Officer (since July 2015); Mercer (financial service provider), Chief Risk and Compliance Officer, North America and Latin America (until June 2015)	N/A
James O. Yost^(k) (age 56)	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. Prior to January 2012, Messrs. DiLorenzo and Yost served as Assistant Treasurers of the Funds. From January 2012 through December 2016, Messrs. DiLorenzo and Yost served as Treasurer and Deputy Treasurer of the Funds, respectively.

(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 a position with MFS. The address of MFS is 111 Huntington Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02199-7618.

(l)

Under the terms of the Boards’ retirement policy, an Independent Trustee shall retire at the end of the calendar year in which he or she reaches the earlier of 75 years of age or 15 years of service on the Board (or, in the case of any Independent Trustee who joined the Board prior to 2015, 20 years of service on the Board).

The Trust holds annual shareholder meetings for the purpose of electing Trustees, and Trustees are elected for fixed terms. Two Trustees, each holding a term of one year, are elected annually by holders of the Trust’s preferred shares. The remaining Trustees are 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.

Messrs. Buller and Kavanaugh and Ms. Roepke are members of the Fund’s Audit Committee.

Trustees and Officers – continued

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, 2017, the Trustees served as board members of 138 funds within the MFS Family of Funds.


Investment Adviser		Custodian
Massachusetts Financial Services Company		State Street Bank and Trust Company
111 Huntington Avenue		1 Lincoln Street
Boston, MA 02199-7618		Boston, MA 02111-2900
Portfolio Managers		Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
Michael Dawson		Ernst & Young LLP
Geoffrey Schechter		200 Clarendon 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, 2016 (“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 Senior Officer, a 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 Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc. (“Broadridge”), an independent third party, on the investment performance (based on net asset value) of the Fund for various time periods ended December 31, 2015 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 Broadridge on the Fund’s advisory fees and other expenses and the advisory fees and other expenses of comparable funds identified by Broadridge (the “Broadridge expense group”), (iii) information provided by MFS on the advisory fees of 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 advisory, administrative and other services to the Fund and the

Board Review of Investment Advisory Agreement – continued

other MFS Funds. The comparative performance, fee and expense information prepared and provided by Broadridge 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 Broadridge 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, 2015, 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 10th out of a total of 18 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 10th out of a total of 18 funds for the one-year period and 4th out of a total of 18 funds for the five-year period ended December 31, 2015. 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 the Bloomberg Barclays Municipal Bond Index (formerly Barclays Municipal Bond Index). The Fund out-performed the Bloomberg Barclays Municipal Bond Index for each of the one-, three- and five-year periods ended December 31, 2015 (one-year: 6.4% total return for the Fund versus 3.3% total return for the benchmark; three-year: 5.9% total return for the Fund versus 3.2% total return for the benchmark; five-year: 11.8% total return for the Fund versus 5.3% 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. After reviewing these and related factors, the Trustees concluded, within the context of their overall conclusions regarding the investment advisory agreement, that they were satisfied with MFS’ responses and efforts relating to investment performance.

Board Review of Investment Advisory Agreement – continued

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 (including the value of preferred shares) and the advisory fee and total expense ratios of peer groups of funds based on information provided by Broadridge The Trustees considered that MFS currently observes an expense limitation for the Fund, which may not be changed without the Trustees’ approval. The Trustees also considered that, according to the data provided by Broadridge (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 lower than the Broadridge expense group median and the Fund’s total expense ratio was higher than the Broadridge expense group median.

The Trustees also considered the advisory fees charged by MFS to any institutional separate accounts advised by MFS (“separate accounts”) and unaffiliated investment companies for which MFS serves as subadviser (“subadvised funds”) that have comparable investment strategies to the Fund. 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, as well as the more extensive regulatory burdens imposed on MFS in managing the Fund, in comparison to separate accounts and subadvised funds.

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 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, 2016.

PROXY VOTING POLICIES AND INFORMATION

MFS votes proxies on behalf of the fund pursuant to proxy voting policies and procedures that are available without charge, upon request, by calling 1-800-225-2606, by visiting mfs.com (once you have selected “Individual Investor” as your role, click on “Individual Investor Home” in the top navigation and then select “Learn More About Proxy Voting” under the “I want to…” header on the left hand column of the page), 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 by August 31 of each year without charge by visiting mfs.com (once you have selected “Individual Investor” as your role, click on “Individual Investor Home” in the top navigation and then select “Learn More About Proxy Voting” under the “I want to…” header on the left hand column of the page), 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 “Market Commentary” and “Announcements” sub sections in the “Market Outlooks” section of mfs.com or by clicking on the fund’s name under “Closed-End Funds” in the “Products” section of mfs.com.

Additional information about the fund (e.g. performance, dividends and the fund’s price history) is also available by clicking on the fund’s name under “Closed-End Funds” in the “Products” section of mfs.com.

INFORMATION ABOUT FUND CONTRACTS AND LEGAL CLAIMS

The fund has entered into contractual arrangements with an investment adviser, administrator, transfer agent, and custodian who each provide services to the fund. Unless expressly stated otherwise, shareholders are not parties to, or intended beneficiaries of these contractual arrangements, and these contractual arrangements are not intended to create any shareholder right to enforce them against the service providers or to seek any remedy under them against the service providers, either directly or on behalf of the fund.

Under the Trust’s By-Laws, any claims asserted against or on behalf of the MFS Funds, including claims against Trustees and Officers, must be brought in state and federal courts located within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

FEDERAL TAX INFORMATION (unaudited)

The fund will notify shareholders of amounts for use in preparing 2016 income tax forms in January 2017. The following information is provided pursuant to provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.

Of the dividends paid from net investment income during the fiscal year, 99.62% is designated as exempt interest dividends for federal income tax purposes. If the fund has earned income on private activity bonds, a portion of the dividends paid may be considered a tax preference item for purposes of computing a shareholder’s alternative minimum tax.

rev. 3/16

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., and MFS Heritage Trust Company.


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, or 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

NYSE MKT Symbol: CCA

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 definition enumerated in paragraph (b) of Item 2 of this Form N-CSR. However, effective January 1, 2017, the Code was amended to (i) clarify that the term “for profit” company as used in Section II.B of the Code excludes the investment adviser and its subsidiaries and pooled investment vehicles sponsored by the investment adviser or its subsidiaries, (ii) align the Code’s provisions regarding receipt of gifts and entertainment in Section II.B of the Code with the gifts and entertainment policy of the Funds’ investment adviser, and (iii) make other administrative changes. 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 amended effective as of January 1, 2017 is filed as an exhibit to this Form N-CSR.

ITEM 3.

AUDIT COMMITTEE FINANCIAL EXPERT.

Messrs. Steven E. Buller and John P. Kavanaugh and Ms. Maryanne L. Roepke, 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. Buller and Kavanaugh and Ms. Roepke 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 Ernst & Young LLP (“E&Y”) 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 November 30, 2016 and 2015, audit fees billed to the Fund by E&Y were as follows:


	Audit Fees
	2016		2015
Fees billed by E&Y:
MFS California Municipal Fund		56,664		56,664

For the fiscal years ended November 30, 2016 and 2015, fees billed by E&Y 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

2016

2015

2016

2015

2016

2015

Fees billed by E&Y:

To MFS California Municipal Fund

11,027

9,953

1,014

1,002

Audit-Related Fees¹

Tax Fees²

All Other Fees³

2016

2015

2016

2015

2016

2015

Fees billed by E&Y:

To MFS and MFS Related Entities of MFS California Municipal Fund^*

1,412,499

1,120,675

116,023

99,446



	Aggregate Fees for Non-audit Services
	2016		2015
Fees Billed by E&Y:
To MFS California Municipal Fund, MFS and MFS Related Entities^#		1,676,116		1,493,103

^*	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 E&Y 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 E&Y 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. Steven E. Buller and John P. Kavanaugh and Ms. Maryanne L. Roepke.

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, 2016

Massachusetts Financial Services Company, MFS Institutional Advisors, Inc., MFS International (UK) Limited, MFS Heritage Trust Company, MFS Investment Management (Canada) Limited, MFS Investment Management Company (Lux) S.à r.l., MFS International Singapore Pte. Ltd., MFS Investment Management K.K., 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*

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 carry-forwards); (4) the board or relevant committee has failed to adequately oversee risk by allowing the hedging and/or significant pledging of company shares by executives; or (5) 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. In our view, such qualifying shareholders should have the ability to nominate at least 2 directors. Companies should be mindful of imposing any undue impediments within its bylaws that may render Proxy Access impractical.

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, (ii) expressly prohibit the backdating of stock options, and (iii) prohibit the acceleration of vesting of equity awards upon a broad definition of a “change-in-control” (e.g.; single or modified single-trigger).

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.

Proxy Contests

From time to time, a shareholder may express alternative points of view in terms of a company’s strategy, capital allocation, or other issues. Such shareholder may also propose a slate of director nominees different than the slate of director nominees proposed by the company (a “Proxy Contest”). MFS will analyze Proxy Contests on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the track record and current recommended initiatives of both company management and the dissident shareholder(s). Like all of our proxy votes, MFS will support the slate of director nominees that we believe is in the best, long-term economic interest of our clients.

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 supports proposals for an independent board chairperson. However, we may not support such proposals if we determine there to be an appropriate and effective counter-balancing leadership structure in place (e.g.; a strong, independent lead director with an appropriate level of powers and duties). 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. In such circumstances, we will vote against director nominee(s). Also, certain markets outside of the U.S. have adopted best practice guidelines relating to corporate governance matters (e.g. the United Kingdom’s and Japan Corporate Governance Codes). 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. In some circumstances, MFS may submit a vote to abstain from certain director nominees or the relevant ballot items if we have concerns with the nominee or ballot item, but do not believe these concerns rise to the level where a vote against is warranted.

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 vote against 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. We may alternatively submit an abstention vote on such proposals in circumstances where our executive compensation concerns are not as severe.

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. For any ballot item where MFS wishes to express a more moderate level of concern than a vote of against, we will cast a vote to abstain.

In accordance with local law or business practices, some foreign companies or custodians prevent the sale 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.

From time to time, governments may impose economic sanctions which may prohibit us from transacting business with certain companies or individuals. These sanctions may also prohibit the voting of proxies at certain companies or on certain individuals. In such instances, MFS will not vote at certain companies or on certain individuals if it determines that doing so is in violation of the sanctions.

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*

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.

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, or (iv) a vote recommendation is requested from an MFS portfolio manager or investment analyst (e.g. mergers and acquisitions); (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 Distributor and Client List”);

If the name of the issuer does not appear on the MFS Significant Distributor and 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 Distributor and 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 Distributor and Client List, in consultation with MFS’ distribution and institutional business units. The MFS Significant Distributor and Client List will be reviewed and updated periodically, as appropriate.

For instances where MFS is evaluating a director nominee who also serves as a director of the MFS Funds, then the MFS Proxy Voting Committee will adhere to the procedures described in section (d) above regardless of whether the portfolio company appears on our Significant Distributor and Client List.

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.

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.

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 further 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 utilize research from Glass Lewis to identify such issues. MFS analyzes such issues independently and does not necessarily vote with the ISS or Glass Lewis recommendations on these issues. MFS may also use other research tools in order to identify the circumstances described above. 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 certain types of votes (e.g. mergers and acquisitions, proxy contests, capitalization matters, potentially excessive executive compensation issues, or certain shareholder proposals)a representative of MFS Proxy Voting Committee may consult with or seek recommendations from MFS investment analysts and/or portfolio managers.² However, the MFS Proxy Voting Committee will 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.

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.

For those markets that utilize a “record date” to determine which shareholders are eligible to vote, MFS generally will vote all eligible shares pursuant to these guidelines regardless of whether all (or a portion of) the shares held by our clients have been sold prior to the meeting date.

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.

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 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.

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*

U.S. Registered MFS Funds

MFS publicly discloses the proxy voting records of the U.S. registered MFS Funds on a quarterly basis. MFS will also report the results of its voting to the Board of Trustees of the U.S. registered 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 of the U.S. registered MFS Funds will consider possible modifications to these policies to the extent necessary or advisable.

Other MFS Clients

MFS may publicly disclose the proxy voting records of certain other clients (including certain MFS Funds) or the votes it casts with respect to certain matters as required by law. 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 the MFS California Municipal Fund (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
Michael Dawson	Portfolio Manager	2007	Investment Officer of MFS; employed in the investment area of MFS since 1998.

Geoffrey Schechter	Portfolio Manager	2007	Investment Officer of MFS; employed in the investment area of MFS since 1993.

Compensation

Portfolio manager compensation is reviewed annually. As of December 31, 2015, 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, 2015, the following benchmarks were used to measure the following portfolio manager’s performance for the Fund:


Fund	Portfolio Manager	Benchmark(s)
MFS California Municipal Fund	Michael Dawson	Bloomberg Barclays Municipal Bond Index

	Geoffrey Schechter	Bloomberg Barclays Municipal Bond Index

Additional or different benchmarks, including versions and components of indices, custom indices, and linked indices that combine performance of different indices for different portions of the time period, may also be used. Consideration is given to portfolio performance over one, three, and five years with emphasis placed on the longer periods. For portfolio managers who have served for more than five years, additional longer-term performance periods are also considered. For portfolio managers who have served for less than five years, performance periods are adjusted as appropriate.

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 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 November 30, 2016. 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
Michael Dawson		N
Geoffrey Schechter		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 November 30, 2016:

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

Michael Dawson

$2.6 billion

N/A

Geoffrey Schechter

$15.3 billion

$562.8 million

N/A

*	Includes the Fund.

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

Potential Conflicts of Interest

MFS 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 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 MFS 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 MFS 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 MFS to be fair and equitable to each. Allocations may be based on many factors and may not always be pro rata based on assets managed. The allocation methodology could have a detrimental effect on the price or volume of the security as far as the Fund is concerned.

MFS 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 California Municipal Fund


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
12/01/15-12/31/15		0		N/A		0		278,623
1/01/16-1/31/16		0		N/A		0		278,623
2/01/16-2/28/16		0		N/A		0		278,623
3/01/16-3/31/16		0		N/A		0		278,623
4/01/16-4/30/16		0		N/A		0		278,623
5/01/16-5/31/16		0		N/A		0		278,623
6/01/16-6/30/16		0		N/A		0		278,623
7/01/16-7/31/16		0		N/A		0		278,623
8/01/16-8/31/16		0		N/A		0		278,623
9/1/16-9/30/16		0		N/A		0		278,623
10/1/16-10/31/16		0		N/A		0		278,626
11/1/16-11/30/16		0		N/A		0		278,626

*Total*		0				0

Note: The Board approved procedures to repurchase shares and reviews the results periodically. The notification to shareholders of the program is part of the semi-annual and annual reports sent to shareholders. These annual programs begin on October 1st 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 (October 1 through the following September 30) to 10% of the Registrant’s outstanding shares as of the first day of the plan year (October 1). The aggregate number of shares available for purchase for the October 1, 2016 plan year is 278,626.

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)

Any written solicitation to purchase securities under Rule 23c-1 under the Act sent or given during the period covered by the report by or on behalf of the Registrant to 10 or more persons. Not applicable.

(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 Agreement and Declaration of Trust, as amended, 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 CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL FUND


By (Signature and Title)*		DAVID L. DILORENZO
		David L. DiLorenzo, President

Date: January 13, 2017

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)*		DAVID L. DILORENZO
		David L. DiLorenzo, President (Principal Executive Officer)

Date: January 13, 2017


By (Signature and Title)*		JAMES O. YOST
		James O. Yost, Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer and Accounting Officer)

Date: January 13, 2017

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