U.S. Code » Title 29 » Chapter CHAPTER 18— EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT INCOME SECURITY PROGRAM › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER III— PLAN TERMINATION INSURANCE › Subtitle Subtitle E— Special Provisions for Multiemployer Plans › Part part 1— employer withdrawals

29 U.S.C. § 1389

De minimis rule

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 29 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Reduction of unfunded vested benefits allocable to employer withdrawn from planExcept in the case of a plan amended under subsection (b), the amount of the unfunded vested benefits allocable under section 1391 of this title to an employer who withdraws from a plan shall be reduced by the smaller of—(1) ¾ of 1 percent of the plan’s unfunded vested obligations (determined as of the end of the plan year ending before the date of withdrawal), or(2) $50,000,reduced by the amount, if any, by which the unfunded vested benefits allowable to the employer, determined without regard to this subsection, exceeds $100,000.(b) Amendment of plan for reduction of amount of unfunded vested benefits allocable to employer withdrawn from planA plan may be amended to provide for the reduction of the amount determined under section 1391 of this title by not more than the greater of—(1) the amount determined under subsection (a), or(2) the lesser of—(A) the amount determined under subsection (a)(1), or(B) $100,000,reduced by the amount, if any, by which the amount determined under section 1391 of this title for the employer, determined without regard to this subsection, exceeds $150,000.(c) NonapplicabilityThis section does not apply—(1) to an employer who withdraws in a plan year in which substantially all employers withdraw from the plan, or(2) in any case in which substantially all employers withdraw from the plan during a period of one or more plan years pursuant to an agreement or arrangement to withdraw, to an employer who withdraws pursuant to such agreement or arrangement.(d) Presumption of employer withdrawal from plan pursuant to agreement or arrangement applicable in action or proceeding to determine or collect withdrawal liability

In any action or proceeding to determine or collect withdrawal liability, if substantially all employers have withdrawn from a plan within a period of 3 plan years, an employer who has withdrawn from such plan during such period shall be presumed to have withdrawn from the plan pursuant to an agreement or arrangement, unless the employer proves otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence.

(Pub. L. 93–406, title IV, § 4209, as added Pub. L. 96–364, title I, § 104(2), Sept. 26, 1980, 94 Stat. 1225.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1982–2025 · leading case: Connolly v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Connolly v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (1986) scotus · cites it 2× “, 29 U. S. C. § 1389 (a) (creating a de minimis rule which eliminates withdrawal liability entirely for an employer whose obligation would be equal to or less than the smaller of (1) 3/4 of 1% of the plan's unfunded vested obligations; or (2) $50,000); § 1405(a)(1) (limiting…”
Peick v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. (1982) ilnd · cites it 2× “Plaintiffs’ final challenge is to 29 U.S. C.A. § 1389 (Supp.1981), the section of MPPAA containing the De Minimis rules.”
Louis F. Peick v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (1983) ca7 “The statute contains “de minimis” exemptions, 29 U.S.C. § 1389 (a) (Supp. V 1981), reducing the burden of liability on smaller employers; provisions reducing liability if a withdrawal results from the liquidation or dissolution of an employer’s business, id.”
Milwaukee Brewery Workers' Pension Plan v. Jos. Schlitz Brewing Co. (1995) scotus “See 29 U. S. C. § 1389 . For another thing, it forgives all annual installment payments after 20 years, see § 1399(c)(1)(B) — and that means that, if an employer’s normal annual contribution was low compared to the withdrawal charge, the presence or absence of withdrawal-year…”
Local 478 Trucking & Allied Industries Pension Fund v. Jayne (1991) njd · cites it 2× “After applying the de minimis reduction provisions of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1389 , the amount was later recalculated by the actuaries to be $1,390,-077.”
Manhattan Ford Lincoln, Inc. v. UAW Local 259 Pension Fund (2018) njd “The MPPAA also provides several adjustments to the employer's allocable share of UVB, including a de minimis reduction, 29 U.S.C. § 1389 (a), an adjustment for partial withdrawal, id.”
Shelter Framing Corp. v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. (1983) ca9 “29 U.S.C. § 1389 (a) (Supp. V 1981). A higher exemption is available if the trustees opt for it in their discretion.”
Combs v. Adkins & Adkins Coal Co., Inc. (1984) dcd “5 The Court rejects the defendants’ contention that this sum should be decreased by the *128 $50,000 reduction provided by the de minimis rule of 29 U.S.C. § 1389 (a). This assertion is barred by the defendants’ failure to pursue the arbitration scheme outlined in the statute,…”
Robbins v. Pepsi-Cola Metropolitan Bottling Co. (1986) ilnd “See also 29 U.S.C. § 1389 (a) (de minimus rule); § 1405(a)(1) (liquidation of business limitation); § 1390(a)(2) (“free look” provision).”
I.A.M. National Pension Fund v. TMR Realty Co. (2006) dcd “§ 1423 , and a potential assessment of mass withdrawal liability under ERISA Sections 4209 and 4219(c), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1389 & 1399(c)(1)(D). See Pis.”
Dorn's Transportation, Inc. v. I.A.M. National Pension Fund (1984) dcd “§ 1405 (a)); or where withdrawal liability was de minimis ( 29 U.S.C. § 1389 ); or where an employer only.”
Artistic Carton Company v. Paper Industry Union-Management Pension Fund (1992) ca7 “As withdrawal is termination at retail rather than wholesale, it is hard to justify different treatment.”
Show all 30 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.