Chief Counsel Advice 1311026 Released June 1, 2012 Advice

CCA 1311026: CCA addresses a bank’s deposit-account superpriority claim

Apply this to your situation

This page covers one taxpayer's ruling from 2012, 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 2012
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 resolved one taxpayer's situation on its specific facts, 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 advice considered a bank’s potential superpriority under IRC § 6323(b)(10) for loans secured by a deposit account. The advice stated that a bank may obtain and perfect a security interest in a business deposit account through control without filing a UCC financing statement. It also noted that a superpriority claim is not a defense to a levy and that the Service generally releases a levy after the bank establishes its superpriority interest.

Ruling snapshot

  • Question: What did the IRS determine under the cited Code provisions?
  • Outcome: advice.
  • Key authorities: IRC § 6323

Full text (IRS public release)

ID: CCA_2012042613145247 Number: 201311026
Release Date: 3/15/2013
Office: ----------------
UILC: 6323.01-05

From:----------------------
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 1:15:01 PM
To:---------------
Cc:--------------------------
Subject: FW: Lien Priority Question ------

Hi -----------
As noted below, under the facts provided it appears that the bank would have a
superpriority under section 6323(b)(10), for deposit-secured loans. There is not much
out there on 6323(b)(10) (a Lexis search pulled up only 3 cases), and I have not come
across anything specifically addressing UCC 9-312 in this context, but the below
excerpt from the GL training materials is useful:
Article 9 of the UCC allows a bank to obtain a security interest in a
deposit account. Specifically, section 9-109 of Article 9 allows a security
interest to be created in personal property. Section 9-109(d)(13), however,
excludes consumer loans from the scope of Article 9, so a security interest
may be created in only business loans. Section 9-314(a) provides that a
security interest in a deposit account may be perfected by control. Under
section 9-104(a)(1), a bank automatically has control when the bank
maintains the deposit account. Section 9-104(b) provides that the bank
still maintains control even if the depositor is allowed to withdraw funds
from the account. There is no requirement that the bank file a UCC
statement with the state. In effect, in most situations, the bank will
automatically and secretly have perfected a security interest in the
depositor's account. A bank’s claim to a section 6323(b)(10)
superpriority, however, is not a defense to a levy. Rev. Rul. 2006-42,
2006-2 C.B. 337.
The Rev Rul cited also provides that we will generally release a levy once a bank
establishes its superpriority interest. See also IRS CCA 200849001 (regarding
application of 6323(b)(10) to taxpayer checking accounts).
From the facts provided, I don't see an argument here that there are any grounds to
dispute the bank's superpriority claim unless the bank did not loan a "fixed and
determinable sum." I have never seen a case where we have disputed a bank's
security interest in a deposit account based upon lack of perfection by control.
Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read what the IRS ruled for one taxpayer in 2012, and it can't be cited as precedent. Ezel checks the current Internal Revenue Code and IRS guidance and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.