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 | 4 min read | 12.04.25

District Court Grants Preliminary Injunction Against Seller of Gray Market Snack Food Products

On November 12, 2025, Judge King in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted in part Haldiram India Ltd.’s (“Plaintiff” or “Haldiram”) motion for a preliminary injunction against Punjab Trading, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Punjab Trading”), a seller alleged to be importing and distributing gray market snack food products not authorized for sale in the United States. The court found that Haldiram was likely to succeed on the merits of its trademark infringement claim because the products at issue, which were intended for sale in India, were materially different from the versions intended for sale in the U.S., and for this reason were not genuine products when sold in the U.S. Although the court narrowed certain overbroad provisions in the requested order, it ultimately enjoined Punjab Trading from importing, selling, or assisting others in selling the non-genuine Haldiram products in the U.S. market....

View All Insights