Automotive Industries Pension Trust Fund v. Tractor Equipment Sales, Inc.
672 F. App'x 685
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Trust appeals district court's summary judgment for Van Tuyls; TES withdrew from the Trust in 2011; withdrawal liability extends to trades or businesses under common control under 29 U.S.C. §1301(b)(1); court treats 'trade or business' as an essentially factual inquiry; factors include whether there is active management, economic relationship, and involvement by owners; here the Van Tuyls' properties were long-held, income-producing investments with minimal personal involvement; properties were largely rented to a single tenant or used for personal purposes, and were purchased decades before TES's withdrawal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Van Tuyls’ real estate holdings constitute a trade or business under §1301(b)(1). | Trust argues holdings are under common control and constitute a trade or business. | Van Tuyls contend passive ownership/investment do not meet trade or business. | Not a trade or business; liabilities not extended. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lafrenz v. Bd. of Trs. of W. Conf. of Teamsters Pension Fund, 837 F.2d 892 (9th Cir. 1988) (relevance of common-control inquiry in withdrawal liability)
- Fulkerson v. Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund, 238 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2001) (factors for determining trade or business under § 1301(b)(1) clarified)
- McDougall v. Pioneer Ranch Ltd. P’ship, 494 F.3d 571 (7th Cir. 2007) (application of trade-or-business concept to investment scenarios)
- Bailey v. United States, 360 F.2d 113 (9th Cir. 1966) (statutory terms construed for purpose of the statute)
- Teamsters Pension Tr. Fund–Bd. of Trs. of W. Conference v. Allyn Transp. Co., 832 F.2d 502 (9th Cir. 1987) (purpose of § 1301(b)(1) to prevent asset-shifting to avoid liability)