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 | 3 min read | 06.12.26

DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability

On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”...

View All Insights