M & K Employee Solutions, Inc. v. Trustees of IAM Nat. Pension · ¶41

The omission of any deadline in § 1393 is significant given Congress's inclusion of a similar deadline in a different section of the statute. Specifically: The amortization period for an employer's withdrawal-liability payments must be determined based on “the assumptions used for the most recent actuarial valuation for the plan.” § 1399(c)(1)(A)(ii). But Congress imposed no similar limit for the actuarial assumptions used to calculate withdrawal liability; we presume this omission is intentional. See Russello v. United States, 464 U. S. 16, 23 (1983) (“[W]here Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.