This does describe what I'm seeing - that an extra "income" dividend is paid at the end of the year, and that it doesn't vary by share class (since all the expenses have been paid already out of the usual monthly dividends).
What puzzles me about that M* statement (which likely reflects reality, at least in part), is that I don't see anything in the prospectus about the fund being an ersatz managed payout fund and that I can't get the financials to match.
Specifically, the fund's net investment income per share comes out to less than the total monthly income dividends (per share) paid out, let alone the total income dividends (including the year end "bonus"). How does it do this without return of capital?
This is based on the prospectus' Financial Highlights. (That's a 38MB file; just in case you've got thoughts of actually checking up on me :-) ) Wait for it to load so that it jumps to Financial Highlights, then scroll a few pages, past prospectus p. 87, to p. 89 where you'll find the data for PIMCO Income Fund.
It shows for the year ending 3/31/15 that the fund distributed 74c as income (for PONDX, i.e. Class D). This matches the sum of the monthly income dividends between April 2014 and March 2015 plus the bonus dividend on 12/29/14 of 10.6c, give or take rounding to the nearest penny.
But that same line in the prospectus says that the net income per share for the same period was only 49c. Where did that other 25c/share come from? The prospectus says there was no return of capital.
I honestly don't have a clue; I don't usually try to dissect financials this finely. There's more going on; can't really comment more on it without understanding it better. Homework for another day, perhaps.

@PRESSmUP - not unique, but not a routine occurrence (unlike monthly income divs and annual cap gains distributions).
The monthly income dividend comes on the last day of the month. For December, it came on the 31st in 2014, 2013, 2012, and 2010. In 2011 it was Dec 30th (Friday). The annual cap gains dividend comes each year in the middle of December.
In some years (2014, 2012, 2011) there was an extra distribution a couple of days before the end of the year. In other years (2013, 2010) there was not. When there was an extra distribution, it was 1x to 2x the mid December regular cap gains distribution (which IMHO looks bad enough - they should not be that bad at calculating the cap gains, absent a late sale). This year it was 25x (25c vs. 1c).
See historical div distributions at Yahoo Finance.
Morningstar is reporting the 24.75c/share div as an income dividend, but that's just repeating what PIMCO's supplemental dividend page said. How could a monthly income dividend of 5c/month transform into 25c for the month of December (in addition to the 5c dividend I expect to show up tomorrow)?
Unless PIMCO has been holding back on paying out the full amount of income on a monthly basis (contradicting its prospectus), or unless it is lying about the nature of the dividend? Any other suggested explanation of where an extra 5x monthly income div comes from?

This appeared to resemble 2011 in many ways on the equity side, as many solid dividend payers lead the way within my portfolio, as they did in 2011.
I tend to ignore the FANG stocks or anything resembling them....for me, they are simply traps.

@ducrow: Based on it's 1-mo.-5 yr. 86/85 percentile performance I'd sell
Regards,
Ted
M*: ICMBX Performance
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/performance-return.action?t=ICMBX&region=usa&culture=en_US
ICMBX Is Ranked #59 In The (MA) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/moderate-allocation/intrepid-capital-fund/icmbx

Something that seemed curious to me is that while PIMCO's link to the file is named is roughly what I stated above (quarterly/annual/supplemental), the file itself says only quarterly dividends. It looks like PIMCO may have grafted onto its quarterly income distributions a CG distribution (due to a last minute sale?).
Further evidence:
- The amount column is labeled Income Dividend Rate (as opposed to the Cap Cains Dividend Rate label that appears in its 12/15 distribution page)
- The distribution amounts are the same for all share classes; that happens for cap gains, not for income dividends (expenses are subtracted from income first, so share classes with different expenses have different net income distributions)
Put these two details together and it suggests a last minute change with incomplete editing, because you've got CGs listed in a file clearly labeled only for income distributions.

M*'s category list for foreign small/mid cap, not necessarily EM pure. Click the YTD column to sort returns through Dec. 29. More than a few active managers have done nicely for 2015 in this area. Always some of the right place/right time, eh?

Someone please tell me which fund in the whole fund universe will kill it in 2016. :)

FYI: In the past month — which is about how long it's been since Columbia Threadneedle dropped Marsico Capital Management (MCM) as subadvisor on Focused Equities and six additional funds — the fund now known as Columbia Large Cap Growth III has topped 75% of its large-cap growth rivals tracked by Morningstar Inc. by losing less than the bulk of them.
That's better than it did over the past 12 months, when it beat just 39% of its peers.
Regards,
Ted
http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=MjEyMTYyODI=
Enlarged Graphic:
http://news.investors.com/photopopup.aspx?path=WebMFprof123015_1K.jpg&docId=787288&xmpSource=&width=1000&height=1205&caption=&id=787287
M* Snapshot NFEAX: http://www.morningstar.com/funds/xnas/nfeax/quote.html

Yet short term aside, within the context of 10 year performance strings ( over 90 years ) of a disciplined tactical allocation approach, "flat" years where "nothing works" are occasionally present and part of the process. Sometimes we have to "sit on our hands" in order for long term alpha to materialize ... https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KGHb49SE5Iugr2rLN_maqMH2fgX2s2rP8FYt0ohVJi0/edit?usp=sharing

There were also a few 'low volatility' ETFs that did ok, such as USMV, EFAV, IVW. But have to wonder how they will do if 2016 is similar to 2015. Another good year, or? And there were more than a few outliers that had a very good 2015 that were not just in or even mostly in the hot technology/biotech sector. DRIOX, PKB, domestic PRWAX, PKB; international DRIOX, TGVIX, TINGX, WAIOX, MAPIX; steady CSRSX. Special note goes to closed PRWCX.
Large cap growth generally had a very good year because of the FANGS and related holdings.
Isn't hindsight wonderful!

No matter the asset class, no matter the environment, there always seems to be one or more outliers. While most others have taken a big haircut in EM stocks, Mr. Anindya Chatterjee of City National Rochdale went for the expensive styling, and so far he's cutting a good figure.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-29/how-one-investor-avoided-the-carnage-in-emerging-market-stocks
Since Chatterjee started the City National Rochdale Emerging Markets Fund on Dec. 14, 2011, he returned 53 percent for investors, even as emerging market stocks declined 0.5 percent. This year, with the MSCI Emerging Markets Index slumping 14 percent, Chatterjee’s $827 million fund is down 3.1 percent, beating 90 percent of peers for the fourth straight year. It’s far and away the best four-year performance among 67 U.S.-based emerging-market stock funds with at least $500 million in assets.
Heavily "thematic" and he's stickin' to it. Darn tootin'! Simply fortuitous, pinball wizard, or........?
Has anyone been monitoring this one?
http://www.citynationalrochdalefunds.com/Content/pdfs/quarterly/Emerging_Markets-3Q15.pdf

I was just there, several days ago, and nothing was mentioned about this. I was expecting a 0.01 CG distribution, as previously posted. The file noted by msf, above, was created at 4:23PM today. Doesn't give one much time to readjust tax-loss selling plans when it hits so late like this. Maybe I'll just use this fund to "readjust" things out. Yeah, PIMCO, expect a call tomorrow.

Relax. Supplemental dividends were distributed today. Nice ones at that!
PONDX = $0.24752
https://www.pimco.com/handlers/displaydocument.ashx?wd=Portfolio Statistics&fn=2015 Income Distributions - PIMS and EqS.pdf&id=9ifOaVwN8bvedzD2LKnBguAjyVbXHWZK9frjJMyYM7E4CMsNBng65BaTcqCYH0dO/Fz/QT5D1e8m9p2ao4xbmDfrHO2Fs/1uF+fFk9XEUqG5aWS3hE+SJmflkYXQZndm6jzOk3o8jC4/eiSHihLzaVcuSYvoXrG+dGihIGCau4QxdFSNu6fUNILeU5z35Kef+obx/MulQKwUuOh2dla7bPuoi3xuRU31ntDGI2Fd4XPIE7LhQp+osTEK5O9mQLv+4n9yzAlKWZLgFKcdu1DR+I+EHZnJ+cmgDmqcxcNRLlOPLIDE1OwTZk8ENyfWnPHB

Is it some kind of distribution? On 12/16/15 we had already capital gains distribution.

Actually it worked out fine for me, also I never relocated, but it is very seldom pleasant being downsized, especially with kids in expensive colleges. I am not sure defense work is that much more labile than other, as I've been laid off from public sector and newspaper jobs as well. Darpa is a great agency, true, and B B N, Raytheon, QinetiQ, Foster-Miller, and Vecna (the places I have worked) have all benefited greatly from its initiatives and conversely the country from their work, even when the productive labor went for naught ultimately. However, Darpa's funding was seriously reduced in 2011 and 2012 and the number of BAAs (broad agency announcements) similarly, I believe. Also another result is lots of 'non-fruitfulness', but that's the nature of that sort of gov R&D. Can't speak to aircraft, but some sectors of aerospace have been nightmarish.

Hi Davidrmoran,
Thank you for reading and replying to my submittal.
It appears that during our working careers we shared a very common pitfall that is endemic to our chosen industry: the Aerospace and Defense complex. Job security and stability are surely not among its stronger suites. To keep fully employed in that economic sector one needed to be flexible and free to move relatively frequently.
For me that started in 1960 in the border city of San Diego, and ended four plus decades later in Los Angeles. In the intervening period, the job or lack thereof situation encouraged me to make five work related change decisions.
Fortunately, in my anecdotal experience, I benefited from these forced decisions. I’m sorry it did not work out so well for you. Such is the complex and unpredictable vicissitudes of opportunity and luck in the referenced industry.
But I do not share your anxiety over upcoming Federal budgets in the Aerospace and Defense arena. I suppose that’s what makes a stock market. Certainly industry growth in that arena has been muted, but modest growth has been persistent.
Aircraft deliveries for the next decade seem solid, and even under the President Obama administration, the budget for DARPA has increased. It appears to have a firm funding commitment through 2016. It is unlikely that any viable Presidential candidate will take a dim, unhealthy perspective of funding that operation in the future.
DARPA has proven to be a very fruitful government expenditure. It not only contributed to maintaining our military supremacy, but also many of its research sponsored byproducts have positively impacted our private and civilian lives. The agencies that have received DARPA support have been abundantly productive. I believe this has been widely recognized and wisely appreciated.
Please enjoy a Happy New Year. I’ll welcome the event by overeating and drinking a bit too much. DARPA will survive, and so will I.
Best Wishes.

The richest people on Earth became a bit poorer this year.The world's richest people lost $19 billion in 2015
Warren Buffett, the world's third-richest person, shed $11.3 billion as Berkshire Hathaway Inc. had its first negative annual return since 2011
Dec 29, 2015 @ 10:09 am
By Bloomberg News
The world's 400 wealthiest individuals shed $19 billion in 2015, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. Falling commodities prices and signs of a slower-growing China spooked investors around the world leading to the first annual decline for the daily wealth index since its 2012 debut.
The world's 400 richest people control a combined $3.9 trillion, according to the index, more than the GDP of every country on Earth except for the U.S., China and Japan.
TOP FIVE

The market declines knocked 49 billionaires off the daily ranking this year, including Glencore Plc. chief executive Ivan Glasenberg and Wang Jing, a Chinese telecom entrepreneur who personally invested $500 million to help Nicaragua build an alternative to the Panama Canal. Mr. Glasenberg lost two-thirds of his fortune as he raced to slash debt at the Swiss commodities company and Mr. Wang fell by about 86% this year.
Not the Banksters !
Elsewhere in the U.S., the rise of dominant investment banks, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co. made billionaires of their respective chairmen, Lloyd Blankfein and Jamie Dimon, both of them rare instances of hired managers accumulating extraordinary wealth.
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20151229/FREE/151229943?template=printart
Bezo's AMZN
https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:AMZN&ei=IDWDVsOTOImPmAG12rmoCg
F A N G stocks here: MGGPX (no NFLX )http://portfolios.morningstar.com/fund/holdings?t=MGGPX&region=usa&culture=en-US
http://www.morganstanley.com/msim/portal/site/US/template.PAGE/?msimPageTitle=epd_comp&u=86bb14f4dc87daf33d3afb1051a9e009&fund=34183&tabName=epd_comp
Today’s ranking of the world’s richest people
http://www.bloomberg.com/billionaires/2015-12-29/cya
More F A N G
Daily Insights David Ott, Chief Investment Officer Acropolis Investment Management LLC
...questions and answers from the Barron’s annual ‘Test Your Wall Street Skills’ quiz.
Most of the ‘big’ questions have already been answered, but there are still some fun ones:
1. Which ‘FANG’ stocks will fare worst in 2016 – Facebook, Amazon, Netflix or Google?
On average, these stocks have gained approximately 84 percent so far this year – the best being Netflix, up 138 percent and the worst, if you can call it that, was Facebook, which gained 35 percent. Unfortunately, I can write about all four of them since not one is on our Approved List.
This is a tough one because the valuation on Amazon seems so absurd: the price-to-earnings ratio is 956! I thought it looked bad when it was around 100 or so, but betting against Jeff Bezos feels like a bad call.
Google is the only one with a PE ratio of less than 100, so I wouldn’t think they would be the worst, so if it’s between Facebook and Netflix, I would have to say Netflix. I mean, why aren’t all media companies streaming their content at this point? What happens if Apple or Google wants in – isn’t it bad enough that Amazon is offering streaming? That said, I still wouldn’t short Netflix.
http://acrinv.com/market-forecasts-part-2/

Fixed income cef's with low/no junk corporates, and munis of the lower IG/non-IG persuasion have beaten the S&P 500 pretty handily. Many muni, preferred, and mortgage-heavy cef's are up roughly in the range of 6-12% (some even better), and HY muni oef's (e.g., PMHIX, NHMAX, LHIAX, even the staid VWAHX) are up ~ 4-5.5%.
A fair number of investments worked this year; what didn't work was stock and taxable bond market index funds and junk corporate bonds.
Meanwhile, the cef "experts" at RiverNorth are flat to negative in the highly touted RNDLX (which, with about half in Gundlach sleeves, means a solid negative performance in the cef sleeve), apparently insisting on holding value-trap junky cef's just because the relative pricing is low.

Great post AndyJ. I am a bit anxious about the New Year. Junk corporates best month historically has always been January. It is certainly beaten down and unloved. I have put 10% there already just in case with the remainder still in the junk munis (ABTYX, PYMDX, EIHYX) Will move further into the junk corporates if the market cooperates.

Fixed income cef's with low/no junk corporates, and munis of the lower IG/non-IG persuasion have beaten the S&P 500 pretty handily. Many muni, preferred, and mortgage-heavy cef's are up roughly in the range of 6-12% (some even better), and HY muni oef's (e.g., PHMIX, NHMAX, LHIAX, even the staid VWAHX) are up ~ 4-5.5%.
A fair number of investments worked this year; what didn't work was stock and taxable bond market index funds and junk corporate bonds.
Meanwhile, the cef "experts" at RiverNorth are flat to negative in the highly touted RNDLX (which, with about half in Gundlach sleeves, means a solid negative performance in the cef sleeve), apparently insisting on holding value-trap junky cef's just because the relative pricing is low.