Ezel / IRS Rulings / 201012057

CCA 201012057: Chief Counsel maintains that a husband’s interest in a residence is subject to collection

Number
201012057
Outcome
Advice
Document type
Chief Counsel Advice
IRS subject
Property Subject v. Not Subject to Lien (See 6301.12-00)
Topics
Procedure, penalties, and administration
Code sections
§ 6321
Ruling dated
January 19, 2010
Publicly released
March 26, 2010
Source
View Official PDF

Apply this to your situation

This page covers legal advice the IRS Office of Chief Counsel wrote for IRS staff, issued in 2010, which can't be cited as precedent. Ask about your situation and see what the current Code and IRS guidance say, with citations.

Currency note: this determination was released in 2010
Statutory amendments, regulation changes, court decisions, or later IRS guidance may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current tax advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, threshold, or position mentioned here.
Not precedent. Under 26 U.S.C. § 6110(k)(3), this written determination may not be used or cited as precedent. It is advice from the IRS Office of Chief Counsel to IRS personnel on the facts they presented, and identifying details were redacted by the IRS before release. The official IRS release (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source.
About this page: The plain-English summary and ruling snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official IRS release. The full text is the IRS's own document.
View official IRS release (PDF)

Plain-English summary

Chief Counsel advised that, despite three Courts of Appeals decisions since Creamer Industries in which the government did not prevail, the Service still considers Creamer Industries correctly decided. The advice agreed with the field opinion that a husband has an interest in a residence that is subject to collection. The release does not provide further facts about the residence or the ownership interest.

Ruling snapshot

  • Question: Is the husband’s interest in the residence subject to collection?
  • Outcome: Advice given
  • Key authorities: IRC § 6321; Creamer Industries

Full text (IRS public release)

ID: CCA-119530-10 Number: 201012057
Release Date: 3/26/2010
Office: -----------
UILC: 6321.01-00

From: ----------------------
Sent: January 19, 2010 5:30 PM
To: ----------------------
Cc: -----------------
Subject: -------------

Hi -------, I finally got the opinion today from Chief Counsel collection experts. The Collection experts acknowledged that the Government has not prevailed in the three Courts of Appeals cases that have considered the issue since Creamer Industries but still believe that Creamer Industries was correctly decided and thus agreed with the field opinion's conclusion that the husband has an interest in the residence that is subject to collection. I will call you later in the week to discuss.

Best regards,

-------------------------
-------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
------------
------------------------------------
---------------------------

What does the Code say today, for your facts?

This advice was written for IRS staff and cannot be cited. Ezel checks the current Internal Revenue Code and IRS guidance against your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace