Thanks everyone for the solution as well as the valuable information

Erland Sommarskog <esquel@sommarskog.se> wrote in message news:<Xns9543F27D0C471Yazorman@127.0.0.1>...
> Hugo Kornelis (hugo@pe_NO_rFact.in_SPAM_fo) writes:
> > Yes you're right, that's better. Thanks. Though I'd use a date further in
> > the future (99991231 - the maximum datetime). Dates after Jan 1st 2050
> > might already start appearing in some databases (e.g. as ending date for a
> > mortgage or life insurance policy).
>
> We went through a period where we tried to save some space by using
> smalldatetime which goes over the brink in June 2076. We later reverted,
> but a few tables were left behind (and an even smaller few may still
> remain). And then one day as a customer of ours tried to import
> securities into our database, thing blew up beacuse of a bond with a due
> date in 2083 which came past this particular table.