# OCC Interpretive Letter No. 1043: Letter concludes that Bank may retain ownership of condominium donated to it by its holding company for use in providing lodging to bank employees, consultants, and customers because commercial accommodations frequently are not available. In addition, under the excess capacity theory, the bank may rent the condo to outside parties when it is not being used for business purposes. Business must continue to be substantial and not just a token amount > Federal · Agency guidance · In force URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT1043 ## Section - **Citation:** OCC Interpretive Letter No. 1043 - **Heading:** Letter concludes that Bank may retain ownership of condominium donated to it by its holding company for use in providing lodging to bank employees, consultants, and customers because commercial accommodations frequently are not available. In addition, under the excess capacity theory, the bank may rent the condo to outside parties when it is not being used for business purposes. Business must continue to be substantial and not just a token amount - **Jurisdiction:** Federal - **Kind:** Agency guidance - **Status:** In force - **Text as of:** August 14, 2026 - **Source:** Compiled text - **Location:** OCC Interpretive Letters / Letter concludes that Bank may retain ownership of condominium donated to it by its holding company for use in providing lodging to bank employees, consultants, and customers because commercial accommodations frequently are not available. In addition, under the excess capacity theory, the bank may rent the condo to outside parties when it is not being used for business purposes. Business must continue to be substantial and not just a token amount. ## Text O Comptroller of the Currency Administrator of National Banks Washington, DC 20219 July 8, 1993 Interpretive Letter #1043 December 2005 12 USC 29 Dear [ ]: This letter responds to your correspondence of June 22, 1993, in which you inquire whether [ ] (“the Bank”) its condominium when it is not being used for bank purposes. In a previous letter, dated January 21, 1993, I opined that the Bank could legally retain the condominium as bank premises under 12 U.S.C. § 29. At the time, the condominium was used only for bank purposes and the Bank did not intend to rent it. Now, the Bank proposes to lease the condominium when it is not being used by the Bank in order to offset some of the condominium’s expenses. Subject to the conditions discussed below, I believe that the Bank may let the condominium when it not being used for bank purposes. The condominium in question was contributed at not cost to the Bank upon the dissolution of the Bank’s former holding company. It has been used exclusively for purposes of the Bank’s business. At certain times of the year, is so crowded that commercial accommodations are not available for the Bank’s auditors, consultants, and certain off-island customers. The Bank has maintained the condominium on its books at no more that $1.00 and claimed the condominium fee of approximately $9600 annually as a business deduction on its tax return. The National Bank Act allows national banks to purchase, hold, and convey real estate for only four purposes. On of those purposes is “[s]uch as shall be necessary for its accommodation in the transaction of its business.” 12 U.S.C § 29 (First) ium on its books at no more that $1.00 and claimed the condominium fee of approximately $9600 annually as a business deduction on its tax return. The National Bank Act allows national banks to purchase, hold, and convey real estate for only four purposes. On of those purposes is “[s]uch as shall be necessary for its accommodation in the transaction of its business.” 12 U.S.C § 29 (First). In my earlier letter, I opined that the Bank could retain the condominium because providing accommodations for outside consultants, auditors and customers, when other commercial lodging is not readily available, is a legitimate business concern of the Bank. Section 29’s limitations are designed “to keep the capital of the banks flowing in the daily channels of commerce; to deter them from embarking in hazardous real estate speculations; and - - 2 to prevent the accumulation of large masses of such property in their hands . . .. “ Union Nat’l Bank v. Matthews, 98 U.S. 621, 626 (1879(. See also First Nat’l Bank v. Comptroller of the Currency, 697 F.2d 675, 681 (5th Cir. 1983). However, 12 U.S.C. § 29 does not prohibit a national bank from owning or leasing a building larger that its current needs dictate. See, e.g., Perth Amboy Nat’l Bank v. Brodsky y, 207 F. Supp. 785, 788 (1962). Additionally, consistent with section 29, both the courts and the OCC have recognized that it is appropriate for a bank to maximize the utility of its banking premises. In Brown v. Schleier, 118 F. 981 8th Cir. 1902), aff’d, 194 U.S. 18 (1904), the court stated: If the land which [a national bank] purchases or leases for the accommodation of its business is very valuable, it should be accorded the same rights that belong to other landowners of improving it in a way that will yield the largest income, lessen its own rent, and render that part of its funds which are invested in realty most productive 18 (1904), the court stated: If the land which [a national bank] purchases or leases for the accommodation of its business is very valuable, it should be accorded the same rights that belong to other landowners of improving it in a way that will yield the largest income, lessen its own rent, and render that part of its funds which are invested in realty most productive. There is nothing, we think, in the national bank act, when rightly construed, which precludes national bank, so long as they act in good faith, from pursing the policy above outlined. The basic requirement, therefore, is that the Bank’s activities must be conducted in good faith, that is, for banking purposes and not in an effort to violate 12 U.S.C. § 29. And, once land is owned appropriately ban a national bank, better utilization thereof is also permissible under section 29. The Brown decision continued: When an occasion arises for an investment in real property for either of the purposes specified in the statute, the national ban k act permits banking associations to act as any prudent person would act in making an investment in real estate, and to exercise the same measure of judgment and discretion. The act out not to be construed in such a way as t o compel a national bank, when it acquires real property for a legitimate purpose, to deal with it otherwise than a prudent landowner would ordinarily deal with such property. Brown, 118 F. at 984. It is prudent for the Bank to attempt to offset some of the expenses associated with its legitimate condominium ownership. If, in good faith, the Bank maintains the condominium as bank premises by continuing to use it for bank purposes, it may legitimately, under the National Bank Act, rent the condominium when it is not being used by the Bank. The Bank’s continued use of the condominium must be substantial in order for the property to continue to be regarded as “bank premises for the purposes of 12 U.S.C. § 29 If, in good faith, the Bank maintains the condominium as bank premises by continuing to use it for bank purposes, it may legitimately, under the National Bank Act, rent the condominium when it is not being used by the Bank. The Bank’s continued use of the condominium must be substantial in order for the property to continue to be regarded as “bank premises for the purposes of 12 U.S.C. § 29. The Bank has indicated that it estimates possible proceeds from the condominium rental to be $4900. Since the condominium fees are approximately $9600 per year, the Bank would not profit as a result of renting the condominium. Your correspondence states that “[t]the Bank does not intend and will not turn this into a net income producing situation whereby the rental income - - 3 will exceed the occupancy expenses.” In my opinion, under the described circumstances, the Bank may lease the condominium when it is not being used by the Bank for business purposes. I trust this reply is responsive to your request Sincerely, /s/ William B. Glidden William B. Glidden Assistant Director Bank Operations and Assets Division ## Nearby sections - [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 719 Letter concludes that an ESOP is a "company' for purposes of 12 U.S.C. 371c and that an ESOP that controls at least 25% of a bank's voting stock is an "affiliate" under sec. 371c (supersedes existing OCC interpretive letter #261). (10/26/89)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0719.md) - [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 720 Group of affiliate national banks may collectively own, through operating subsidiaries, minority interest in a merchant credit card processing subsidiary. (01/26/96)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0720.md) - [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 722 A national bank may invest CIF assets in mutual funds, including mutual funds that pay the bank a servicing fee, without the bank having to reduce its trustee fees, if the bank concludes, based upon a reasoned opinion of trust counsel, that such an arrangement is authorized by applicable state law, is consistent with the trust instrument, is appropriate for the particular trust accounts, and is consistent with OCC regulations, including in particular 12 C.F.R. 9.18(b)(12). (03/12/96)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0722.md) - [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 724 Bank can sell vehicle service contracts to customers who use home equity loan proceeds to purchase a vehicle, and the maturity of the service contract may be different from the maturity of the loan. (04/22/96)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0724.md) - [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 725 National bank to establish an operating subsidiary to engage in permissible derivatives-related activities. (05/10/96)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0725.md) - [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 726 Letter concerns the application of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) regulations to financial institutions' support of microenterprise lending programs. (06/21/96).](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0726.md) - [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 730 Letter concludes that loans proposed by the bank to an unaffiliated distributor of mutual funds would not be subject to interaffiliate lending restrictions contained in 12 U.S.C. 371C. (05/29/96).](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0730.md) - [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 732 National bank may make a 5.5% investment in software company which is engaged in the design, development, marketing and maintenance of a network for electronic funds transfers and electronic data interchange, including transacting electronic commerce and marketing software products for use on its world-wide electronic commerce network. (05/10/96).](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0732.md) - [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 733 National bank receiver is subject to the rights of secured creditors and creditors entitled to setoff. U.S. legal principles regarding enforcement of security interests are applicable to a receivership of a federal branch or agency conducted under National Bank Act. Therefore, receiver of an uninsured federal branch or agency does not have the right to interfere with the rights of secured creditors, including application of collateral held in U.S. to obligations of a non-U.S. office of the bank. (06/19/96).](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0733.md) - [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 736 Lending limit exception for participations not limited to banks. Non-banks may act as participants. (07/25/96)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0736.md) - [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 737 Huntington National Bank's acquisition of minority interest in a limited liability company providing stored value systems. (08/19/96)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0737.md) - [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 738 National bank's participation in a guaranty issued by an agent for a syndication of lenders with respect to their borrower's letter of credit reimbursement obligations to another bank or financial institution is permissible under I.R. 7.1016. (08/14/96)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0738.md) - [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 740 Letter advises the Bank as follows: 1) The question of whether "salary" as used in 12 C.F.R. 2.4 includes an officer's base salary, bonuses, director's fees and/or any other compensation paid by the Bank must be determined by the Bank's management; 2) the question of whether the payment bonuses for credit life sales under 12 C.F.R. 2.4 is based on salary received by the recipient in a calendar year, a fiscal year, or any 12-month period must be determined by the Bank's management; and 3) pursuant to 12 C.F.R. 2.4, if the Bank's CEO is a loan officer and the CEO participates in the bonus plan under which payments based on credit life insurance sales are made, the CEO must be included in averaging the salaries of loan officers that participate in the Bank's bonus or incentive plan. (08/19/96)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0740.md) - [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 741 National bank may acquire majority interest in company which operates call center facility which operates programs by which potential customers for new or used automobiles may access databases containing information on the used and new car inventories of numerous automobile dealerships in its metropolitan area. (08/19/96)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0741.md) --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT1043. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.