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

29 U.S.C. § 1393

Actuarial assumptions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 29 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Use by plan actuary in determining unfunded vested benefits of a plan for computing withdrawal liability of employerThe corporation may prescribe by regulation actuarial assumptions which may be used by a plan actuary in determining the unfunded vested benefits of a plan for purposes of determining an employer’s withdrawal liability under this part. Withdrawal liability under this part shall be determined by each plan on the basis of—(1) actuarial assumptions and methods which, in the aggregate, are reasonable (taking into account the experience of the plan and reasonable expectations) and which, in combination, offer the actuary’s best estimate of anticipated experience under the plan, or(2) actuarial assumptions and methods set forth in the corporation’s regulations for purposes of determining an employer’s withdrawal liability.(b) Factors determinative of unfunded vested benefits of plan for computing withdrawal liability of employerIn determining the unfunded vested benefits of a plan for purposes of determining an employer’s withdrawal liability under this part, the plan actuary may—(1) rely on the most recent complete actuarial valuation used for purposes of section 412 of title 26 and reasonable estimates for the interim years of the unfunded vested benefits, and(2) in the absence of complete data, rely on the data available or on data secured by a sampling which can reasonably be expected to be representative of the status of the entire plan.(c) Determination of amount of unfunded vested benefitsFor purposes of this part, the term “unfunded vested benefits” means with respect to a plan, an amount equal to—(A) the value of nonforfeitable benefits under the plan, less(B) the value of the assets of the plan.(Pub. L. 93–406, title IV, § 4213, as added Pub. L. 96–364, title I, § 104(2), Sept. 26, 1980, 94 Stat. 1233; amended Pub. L. 101–239, title VII, § 7891(a)(1), Dec. 19, 1989, 103 Stat. 2445.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1989—Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 101–239 substituted “Internal Revenue Code of 1986” for “Internal Revenue Code of 1954”, which for purposes of codification was translated as “title 26” thus requiring no change in text.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1989 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 101–239 effective, except as otherwise provided, as if included in the provision of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99–514, to which such amendment relates, see section 7891(f) of Pub. L. 101–239, set out as a note under section 1002 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 58 cases (23 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case: United Mine Workers of Am. v. Energy West Mining Co., 39 F.4th 730 (D.C. Cir. 2022).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United Mine Workers of Am. v. Energy West Mining Co., 39 F.4th 730 (D.C. Cir. 2022). · cites it 10× “” 29 U.S.C. § 1393 (a)(1). The Energy West Mining Company (“Energy West”) withdrew from the United Mine Workers of America 1974 Pension Plan (“Pension Plan”) in 2015.”
Manhattan Ford Lincoln, Inc. v. UAW Local 259 Pension Fund, 331 F. Supp. 3d 365 (D.N.J. 2018). · cites it 11× “29 U.S.C. § 1393 (c). The resulting figure is the UVB.”
Sofco Erectors, Inc. v. Trs. of the Ohio Operating Eng'rs Pension Fund, 15 F.4th 407 (6th Cir. 2021). · cites it 8× “at *8–10; see 29 U.S.C. § 1393 (a)(1). But the district court upheld the arbitrator’s determination and granted the Fund’s motion to enforce on three issues: that forklift work was properly included in the Fund’s withdrawal determination, Sofco, 2020 WL 2541970 , at *7; that it…”
Concrete Pipe & Prods. of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Trust for S. Cal., 508 U.S. 602 (1993). · cites it 3× “" 29 U. S. C. § 1393 (a)(1). The presumption in question arises under § 1401(a)(3)(B), which provides that *632 "the determination of a plan's unfunded vested benefits for a plan year, [is] presumed correct unless a party contesting the determination shows by a preponderance of…”
N.Y. Times Co. v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers'-Publishers' Pension Fund, 303 F. Supp. 3d 236 (S.D. Ill. 2018). · cites it 7× “§ 1084 (c)(3)(A)-(B) (detailing permissible actuarial assumptions for minimum funding for multiemployer plans); 29 U.S.C. § 1393 (a)(1) (detailing permissible actuarial assumptions for withdrawal liability); see Times Mem.”
Chicago Truck Drivers v. CPC Logistics, Inc., 698 F.3d 346 (7th Cir. 2012). · cites it 7× “29 U.S.C. § 1393 (a)(1). Despite the identical statutory text (the text we just quoted) for both calculations, the Segal Company used different formulas to arrive at its “best estimate” of the two rates.”
Bd. of Trs. v. Eberhard Foods, Inc., 831 F.2d 1258 (6th Cir. 1987). · cites it 4× “” 29 U.S.C. § 1393 (c). This calculation requires a determination of the present value of the vested payments as they will come due over time.”
Robbins v. Pepsi-Cola Metro. Bottling Co., 636 F. Supp. 641 (N.D. Ill. 1986). · cites it 3× “The Pepsi defendants’ seventeenth affirmative defense and twelfth counterclaim alleges that “the provisions of the MPPAA, including but not limited to, § 4213 ( 29 U.S.C. § 1393 ), 39 pertaining to the actuarial *670 assumptions used in computing the withdrawal liability of an…”
Nat'l Ret. Fund v. Metz Culinary Mgmt., Inc., 946 F.3d 146 (2d Cir. 2020). · cites it 2× “The district court held that Section 4213 of the 4 Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1393 , does not 5 require actuaries to calculate withdrawal liability based on interest rate 6 assumptions used prior to an employer’s withdrawal from a plan.”
Harrison Combs v. Classic Coal Corp., 931 F.2d 96 (D.C. Cir. 1991). · cites it 4× “The district court granted summary judgment, overturning the arbitration order and holding that the actuarial assumptions were reasonable in the aggregate within the meaning of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1393 (a) (as amended by the…”
Keith Fulton & Sons, Inc. v. New England Teamsters & Trucking Indus. Pension Fund, Inc., 762 F.2d 1137 (1st Cir. 1985). · cites it 2× “The trustees must use an accepted actuarial method for computing the unfunded vested liability of a plan, 29 U.S.C. § 1393 (a), which is the total amount owed to participating employees at the time of the withdrawal.”
In re Pulaski High. Express, Inc., 57 B.R. 502 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1986). · cites it 2× “ERISA § 4213(c), 29 U.S.C. § 1393 (c) (1985). A nonforfeitable benefit is: With respect to a plan, a benefit for which a participant has satisfied the conditions for entitlement under the plan or the requirements of this Act .”
Show all 58 citing cases →
29 U.S.C. § 1393(a)(2): 1 case
M & K Emp. Solutions, Inc. v. Trs. of IAM Nat. Pension, No. 23-1209 (U.S. May 21, 2026).
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.