In Mead Corp. v. Tilley et al., the U.S. Supreme Court addressed whether a company could deduct from its taxes the full amount it paid into an employee pension fund when that payment exceeded current liabilities to retirees and was intended to cover future obligations as well. The court ruled in favor of Mead Corporation, stating that companies can indeed deduct such payments from their taxable income under certain conditions outlined by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). This decision clarified tax law regarding corporate contributions to pension funds, providing guidance for businesses seeking to manage their retirement benefits programs responsibly while also minimizing tax liability.

In the dissenting opinion for Mead Corp. v. Tilley, Justice Scalia argued that the majority misinterpreted ERISA's (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) provisions and wrongly applied trust law principles to this case. He contended that under ERISA, an employer could terminate a pension plan at any time without being required to pay more than what is already accrued by employees up until termination point. The majority’s ruling requiring employers to fund all future benefits upon termination was seen as inconsistent with ERISA's language and intent by Scalia. Furthermore, he disagreed with the application of common-law trust principles in interpreting federal statutes like ERISA unless explicitly stated within the statute itself or if there were compelling reasons otherwise - neither of which existed in this case according to him.