1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |IRS Announces Inflation-Adjusted Dollar Limits for 2004

IRS Announces Inflation-Adjusted Dollar Limits for 2004

Client Alert | 1 min read | 12.22.03

In IR-2003-122, the IRS announced the limitations applicable to contributions and benefits under various employee benefit provisions of the Code for 2004, as adjusted for changes in the cost of living. The 2004 limits are as follows:

Item
2004
2003
Maximum annual annuity payable from a tax-qualified defined benefit pension plan at age 65
$165,000
$160,000
Maximum "annual addition" to a participant's account under a tax-qualified defined contribution plan
$41,000
$40,000
Elective Deferrals under Code Section 402(g)
$13,000
$12,000
SIMPLE plan elective contributions
$9,000
$8,000
(2003)
Section 401(a)(17) Limit on annual amount of a participant's compensation that can be taken into account for contribution or benefit purposes under a tax-qualified retirement plan
$205,000
$200,000
Section 401(a)(17) compensation limit with COLA adjustment
$305,000
$300,000
Compensation threshold for definition of "highly compensated employee"
$90,000
$90,000
Compensation limit for determining "key employees" for top-heavy plan purposes
$130,000
$130,000
Compensation limit for definition of "control employee for fringe benefit valuation purposes
$80,000
$80,000
Compensation limit for definition of "control employee for fringe benefit valuation purposes
$80,000
$80,000
ESOP five-year distribution limit
$830,000
$810,000

 

Insights

Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.26.25

From ‘Second’ to ‘First:’ Federal Circuit Tackles Obvious Claim Errors

Patent claims must be clear and definite, as they set the boundaries of the patentee’s rights. Occasionally, however, claim language contains errors, such as typographical mistakes or incorrect numbering. Courts possess very limited authority to correct such errors. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has emphasized that judicial correction is appropriate only in rare circumstances, where (1) the error is evident from the face of the patent, and (2) the proposed correction is the sole reasonable interpretation in view of the claim language, specification, and prosecution history. See Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 407 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003)....

View All Insights