## Table 0 ##
The change in year-end assets in the United States and Other Western Hemisphere in 2005 from 2004 is primarily related to the 2005 cash repatriation from the Company’s non-U.
S.  subsidiaries pursuant to the AJCA of 2004.
Note 18 Leases Minimum rental commitments under all non-cancelable operating leases, primarily real estate and motor vehicles, in effect at December 31, 2005, were:
## Table 1 ##
Operating lease rental expense (net of sublease rental income of $15 million in 2005, $13 million in 2004 and $11 million in 2003) was $150 million in 2005, $149 million in 2004 and $137 million in 2003.
Note 19 Pension And Other Postretirement Benefit Plans The Company and certain of its subsidiaries have defined benefit pension plans, defined contribution plans, and termination indemnity plans for regular full-time employees.
The principal pension plan is the Bristol-Myers Squibb Retirement Income Plan.
The funding policy is to contribute amounts to provide for current service and to fund past service liability.
Plan benefits are based primarily on the participant’s years of credited service and compensation.
Plan assets consist principally of equity and fixed-income securities.
The Company also provides comprehensive medical and group life benefits for substantially all U. S.  retirees who elect to participate in its comprehensive medical and group life plans.
The medical plan is contributory.
Contributions are adjusted periodically and vary by date of retirement and the original retiring Company.
The life insurance plan is noncontributory.
Plan assets consist principally of equity and fixed-income securities.
Similar plans exist for employees in certain countries outside of the United States.
Cost of the Company’s deferred benefits and postretirement benefit plans included the following components:
## Table 2 ##
The Company has recognized the impact of the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 in 2005 and 2004, and in accordance with FSP No.106-2, recorded $11 million and $8 million in 2005 and 2004, respectively, as a reduction in net periodic benefit costs.
Bristol-Myers Squibb 92 The Company has recorded deferred tax assets related to U. S.  foreign tax credit carryforwards of approximately $975 million and U. S.  research tax credit carryforwards of approximately $120 million, which expire in varying amounts beginning in 2012.
Realization of the foreign tax credit and research tax credit carryforwards is dependent on generating sufficient domestic-sourced taxable income prior to their expiration.
Although realization is not assured, management believes it is more likely than not that these deferred tax assets will be realized.
The Company anticipates increasing its level of domestic profitability over time by undertaking actions such as increasing its biologics manufacturing capacity in the U. S.  While increasing domestic profitability will likely cause the Company’s effective tax rate to increase, it will also further enhance the Company’s ability to utilize its foreign tax credit and research tax credit carryforwards.
The amount of foreign tax credit and research tax credit carryforwards considered realizable, however, could be reduced in the near term if the outcome of the Plavix litigation in the U. S.  is unfavorable, and/or if the timing of generic competition for Plavix were to be accelerated.
If such events occur, the Company may need to record significant additional valuation allowances against these deferred tax assets.
For additional information on Plavix litigation, see Note 20 “Legal Proceedings and Contingencies.
” Income taxes paid during the year were $1,556 million, $822 million and $869 million in 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively.
The current tax benefit realized upon the exercise of stock options is charged to capital in excess of par value of stock and amounted to $19 million, $26 million and $10 million in 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively.
As of December 31, 2005, the Company had approximately $8.4 billion of undistributed earnings of foreign subsidiaries for which taxes have not been provided as the Company has invested or expects to invest these undistributed earnings permanently offshore.
If in the future these earnings are repatriated to the United States, or if the Company determines such earnings will be remitted in the foreseeable future, additional tax provisions would be required.
Due to complexities in the tax laws and the assumptions that would have to be made, it is not practicable to estimate the amounts of income taxes that would have to be provided.
The Company has settled its U. S.  federal income tax returns with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) through 2001.
The Company’s U. S.  Federal income tax returns for 2002 and 2003 are currently under examination by the IRS.
The Company conducts business in various states, municipalities, and foreign countries through its subsidiary companies.
State, local and foreign tax authorities routinely examine the Company’s income tax returns.
The Company establishes liabilities for possible assessments by taxing authorities resulting from known tax exposures including, but not limited to, transfer pricing, certain tax credits, deductibility of certain expenses and various state, local, and foreign tax matters.
Such amounts represent a reasonable provision for taxes ultimately expected to be paid, and may need to be adjusted over time as more information becomes known.
The effect of changes in estimates related to contingent tax matters is included in the effective tax rate reconciliation above.
In 2005, the Company recognized an income tax benefit of approximately $159 million due to the settlement of the Company’s U. S.  Federal income tax returns for the years 1998 through 2001.
In 2002, the Company reorganized the structure of its ownership of many of its non-U.
S.  subsidiaries.
The principal purpose of the reorganization was to facilitate the Company’s ability to efficiently deploy its financial resources outside the United States.
The Company believes that the reorganization transactions were generally tax-free both inside and outside the United States.
It is possible, however, that taxing authorities in particular jurisdictions could assert tax liabilities arising from the reorganization transactions or the operations of the reorganized subsidiaries.
It is not reasonably possible to predict whether any taxing authority will assert such a tax liability or to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss with respect to any such asserted tax liability.
The Company would vigorously challenge any such assertion and believes that it would prevail but there can be no assurance of such a result.
If the Company were not to prevail in final, non-appealable determinations, it is possible the impact could be material.
## Table 3 ##
For purposes of determining Entergy Corporation's relative performance for the 2006-2008 period, the Committee used the Philadelphia Utility Index as the peer group.
Based on market data and the recommendation of management, the Committee compared Entergy Corporation's total shareholder return against the total shareholder return of the companies that comprised the Philadelphia Utility Index.
Based on a comparison of Entergy Corporation's performance relative to the Philadelphia Utility Index as described above, the Committee concluded that Entergy Corporation had exceeded the performance targets for the 2006-2008 performance cycle with Entergy finishing in the first quartile which resulted in a payment of 250% of target (the maximum amount payable).
Each performance unit was then automatically converted into cash at the rate of $83.13 per unit, the closing price of Entergy Corporation common stock on the last trading day of the performance cycle (December 31, 2008), plus dividend equivalents accrued over the three-year performance cycle.
See the 2008 Option Exercises and Stock Vested table for the amount paid to each of the Named Executive Officers for the 2006-2008 performance unit cycle.
x Stock Options The Personnel Committee and in the case of the Named Executive Officers (other than Mr.  Leonard, Mr.  Denault and Mr.  Smith), Entergy's Chief Executive Officer and the Named Executive Officer's supervisor consider several factors in determining the amount of stock options it will grant under Entergy's equity ownership plans to the Named Executive Officers, including: x Individual performance; x Prevailing market practice in stock option grants; x The targeted long-term value created by the use of stock options; x The number of participants eligible for stock options, and the resulting "burn rate" (i. e. , the number of stock options authorized divided by the total number of shares outstanding) to assess the potential dilutive effect; and x The Committee's assessment of other elements of compensation provided to the Named Executive Officer For stock option awards to the Named Executive Officers (other than Mr.  Leonard), the Committee's assessment of individual performance of each Named Executive Officer done in consultation with Entergy Corporation's Chief Executive Officer is the most important factor in determining the number of options awarded.
The following table sets forth the number of stock options granted to each Named Executive Officer in 2008.
The exercise price for each option was $108.20, which was the closing fair market value of Entergy Corporation common stock on the date of grant.
## Table 4 ##
The option grants awarded to the Named Executive Officers (other than Mr.  Leonard and Mr.  Lewis) ranged in amount between 5,000 and 50,000 shares.
Mr.  Lewis did not receive any stock option awards in 2008.
In the case of Mr.  Leonard, who received 175,000 stock options, the Committee took special note of his performance as Entergy Corporation's Chief Executive Officer.
Among other things, the Committee noted that

Tables referenced above, in order (Table 0 first):
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="3"> Net Sales </td><td colspan="2"> Year-end Assets </td></tr><tr><td>(Dollars in Millions)</td><td> 2005 </td><td> 2004 </td><td> 2003 </td><td> 2005 </td><td> 2004 </td></tr><tr><td>United States</td><td>$10,461</td><td>$10,613</td><td>$10,656</td><td>$20,579</td><td>$15,727</td></tr><tr><td>Europe, Middle East and Africa</td><td>5,136</td><td>5,470</td><td>4,985</td><td>4,779</td><td>5,920</td></tr><tr><td>Other Western Hemisphere</td><td>1,592</td><td>1,425</td><td>1,333</td><td>1,556</td><td>7,228</td></tr><tr><td>Pacific</td><td>2,018</td><td>1,872</td><td>1,679</td><td>1,224</td><td>1,560</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$19,207</td><td>$19,380</td><td>$18,653</td><td>$28,138</td><td>$30,435</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td> Years Ending December 31,</td><td> (Dollars in Millions) </td></tr><tr><td>2006</td><td>$129</td></tr><tr><td>2007</td><td>105</td></tr><tr><td>2008</td><td>81</td></tr><tr><td>2009</td><td>58</td></tr><tr><td>2010</td><td>34</td></tr><tr><td>Later years</td><td>68</td></tr><tr><td>Total minimum payments</td><td>475</td></tr><tr><td>Less total minimum sublease rentals</td><td>63</td></tr><tr><td>Net minimum rental commitments</td><td>$412</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="3">Pension Benefits</td><td colspan="3">Other Benefits</td></tr><tr><td>(Dollars in Millions)</td><td>2005</td><td>2004</td><td>2003</td><td>2005</td><td>2004</td><td>2003</td></tr><tr><td>Service cost—benefits earned during the year</td><td>$223</td><td>$180</td><td>$144</td><td>$9</td><td>$8</td><td>$8</td></tr><tr><td>Interest cost on projected benefit obligation</td><td>314</td><td>295</td><td>275</td><td>36</td><td>37</td><td>46</td></tr><tr><td>Expected return on plan assets</td><td>-361</td><td>-355</td><td>-353</td><td>-20</td><td>-18</td><td>-15</td></tr><tr><td>Net amortization and deferral</td><td>216</td><td>157</td><td>71</td><td>3</td><td>—</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>Net periodic benefit cost</td><td>392</td><td>277</td><td>137</td><td>28</td><td>27</td><td>46</td></tr><tr><td>Curtailments and settlements</td><td>—</td><td>-1</td><td>-1</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Total net periodic benefit cost</td><td>$392</td><td>$276</td><td>$136</td><td>$28</td><td>$27</td><td>$46</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="2"> December 31, </td></tr><tr><td>(Dollars in Millions)</td><td> 2005 </td><td> 2004 </td></tr><tr><td>Trade receivables</td><td>$2,797</td><td>$3,393</td></tr><tr><td>Miscellaneous receivables</td><td>788</td><td>1,201</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>3,585</td><td>4,594</td></tr><tr><td>Less allowances</td><td>207</td><td>221</td></tr><tr><td>Receivables, net</td><td>$3,378</td><td>$4,373</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Named Exeutive Officer</td><td>Stock Options</td></tr><tr><td>J. Wayne Leonard</td><td>175,000</td></tr><tr><td>Leo P. Denault</td><td>50,000</td></tr><tr><td>Richard J. Smith</td><td>35,000</td></tr><tr><td>E. Renae Conley</td><td>15,600</td></tr><tr><td>Hugh T. McDonald</td><td>7,000</td></tr><tr><td>Haley Fisackerly</td><td>5,000</td></tr><tr><td>Joseph F. Domino</td><td>7,000</td></tr><tr><td>Roderick K. West</td><td>8,000</td></tr><tr><td>Theodore H. Bunting, Jr.</td><td>18,000</td></tr><tr><td>Carolyn Shanks</td><td>7,000</td></tr></table>

Question: Which year is Interest cost on projected benefit obligation the highest for Pension Benefits?
Answer: 2005