Cons of withdrawing money from an Roth IRA account?
First thing to note is that contributions (i.e. the total of all the amounts that you directly contributed into Roth IRA at any point in time) to a Roth IRA can be withdrawn at any time, without needing any reason, without any tax or penalty. Early withdrawal (early because you are under 59.5) of earnings, on the other hand, will incur tax and penalty. (I didn't go into withdrawal of conversions as those are a little more complex.) When you withdraw, contributions come out first, so as long as you don't withdraw more than the amount of past contributions, you won't have any tax or penalty. And if it's not going to have tax, it doesn't really matter if you do it this year or next year. If you need to dip into the earnings, however, then maybe it would be better to do this year so it will be taxed at lower rates. "One ""con"" I have not yet seen mentioned: retirement accounts are generally protected from creditors in a bankruptcy.  There are limits and exceptions, Roth has a 1.2 million dollar limit and can be split by a divorce QDRO for instance.  Link Since it seems you have no income this year, you may may be raiding your IRA for living expenses.   If there is a chance you may declare bankruptcy in the next year or so, consider doing that first and raid the IRA for seed money after." In a year with no income, the best advice is to convert existing IRA money to Roth. This lets you take advantage of the 'zero' bracket, the combination of your exemption and standard deduction. This adds to $10,300 for a single person.  Other than that, if you are determined to take the money out, just do it. There would be a 10% penalty of the growth, but the original deposit comes out tax free anyway.  Edit - There's a rule that if you sell your entire Roth account (i.e. all Roth accounts, you can't pick one of a few) and have a loss, you can take that loss. (Per Dilip's comment, this strategy is pretty moot, it's not a loss taken against other income as a stock loss would potentially be))
First of all depending on the type of IRA you may not have to pay taxes on withdrawals in the US at all. If you are withdrawing your principle from a Roth IRA then you don't owe taxes. Only when you withdraw the gains do you pay taxes on it. You have two options for withdrawals: Lump Sum Withdrawal: If you take a lump sum withdrawal you will owe taxes to the US (30% for non-resident aliens of the US), and according to DTAA; Article 23, you will file your taxes with India declaring your IRA or 401(k) withdrawal proceeds and claim credit on the taxes you paid to the US.  Monthly Pension Withdrawal: You can also receive monthly pension payments and you will only be taxed in the country in which you are a resident of. This is according to DTAA, Article 20. You would then have to submit necessary documentation to your payer in the US so that they do not withhold any taxes in the US. Just as a side note it might be just better to keep the money where it is and let it grow or roll it over to a Roth IRA if you are currently in a lower tax bracket for maximum savings of your principle. Here is a link with more detailed information of what I provided you: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-01-25/news/30663129_1_taxable-income-nri-401k-plan As others mentioned, I am not sure what you mean by stating that your 401K was rolled over to a money market account. Assuming that it was rolled over to an IRA account, you can roll it over to another IRA account with a financial institution of your choice (either a brokerage or a bank.) Alternatively, you can withdraw these funds, but since you are under 59.5 years old, you would have to cough up 10% penalty to IRS for this unqualified withdrawal. Therefore, I would strongly recommend for you to wait till you reach this eligible age. Other qualified (penalty-free) withdrawals are: purchase of the first home, college tuition, medical insurance premiums for unemployed individuals, disability, and medical expenses exceeding 7.5% of your Adjusted Gross Income. I would assume that your 401K was a Traditional 401K account (before tax contributions), and not ROTH 401K, so yo would also have to pay taxes upon withdrawing funds whether you do it now or after you are 59.5 y.o. To your question. Yes. What you propose is typically called the back door Roth. You make the (non-deductible) IRA deposit, and soon after, convert to Roth. As long as you have no other existing IRA, the process is simple, and actually a loophole that's still open.  If you have an existing IRA, the conversion may be partially taxed based on untaxed balance. As comments frequently get overlooked, I'm adding @DilipSarwate excellent warning regarding this - Depending on the value of the existing Traditional IRA and its   pre-existing basis, if any, the backdoor Roth conversion might be    almost completely taxable. Example: Traditional IRA worth $250K with    zero basis. New nondeductible contribution increase value to $255.5K    and basis $5.5K. Converting $5.5K into a Roth IRA leaves $250K in the   Traditional IRA with basis $5381.60. That is, of that $5500    conversion, only $118.40 was nontaxable and so, not only is the    original $5500 taxable income to the OP but he also owes taxes on    $5381.60 of that $5.5K conversion. In short, discussions of backdoor Roth conversions as a great idea should always be tempered with an acknowledgement that it does not work very well if there is any other money in the Traditional IRA. Once that nondeductible contribution enters a Traditional IRA, it does not come out completely until all your Traditional IRA accounts are drained of all money. All your Traditional IRA money is considered by the IRS to be in a single pot, and you can't set up a Traditional    IRA (possibly with a new custodian) via nondeductible contribution, convert just that Traditional IRA account into a    Roth IRA account, and claim that the whole conversion amount is nontaxable because all the tax-deferred money is in the other IRAs that you haven't touched at all. Last - you disclosed that you are depositing to a Roth 401(k) to the match. Which prompts me to ask if this is best. If your marginal rate is 25% or higher, you are missing the opportunity to save 'off the top', at that rate, and 'fill the lower brackets' at retirement, or, via conversion, any year before then when you are in a lower bracket for whatever reason. See my answer for Saving for retirement: How much is enough? which addresses this further.  From new comments - Won't his Roth 401k contributions max out his overall Roth   contributions? No. They are separate numbers, each with own annual limits. Wouldn't this prevent any back-door Roth conversions? The 401(k) has no effect on back door Roth, except for the fact that the 401(k) and high income make the Roth IRA unavailable by normal deposit. Back door is the only door.  At the end are you encouraging him to look for a Traditional 401(k) at   work to max out, then contributing to a Roth? Yes! Read the linked SE article, and consider the annual withdrawal that would get you to 25%. As I wrote, it would take $2M+ to 'fill' the 15% bracket at retirement. One additional note related to Roth vs regular: for a regular 401k or IRA, you pay the 10% penalty on any withdrawal.  For a Roth, you can withdraw the contributions early (but not the earnings) without any penalty or tax. Of course, if this is a retirement account it's better to leave it that way.  Personally it's one reason I avoid Roth - in addition to probably being in a higher bracket now, I also would prefer not to be able to touch my money.  But for some there could be advantages in having that ability (such as in an emergency). Whether or not you can deposit to a Roth IRA, you are able to convert those deposits to A Roth account. In effect, you pay the tax going in (as with the regular brokerage account) but no tax on growth when withdrawn.  The non-deductible IRA, on its own, holds little appeal, in comparison. Except I would never keep 10k in cash inside a Roth unless I was waiting for a buy opportunity.  Money in a Roth should be invested, not sitting in cash, you're not taking advantage of any of the features of a Roth by leaving it in cash. "Wow. It's clear I'm outnumbered.  When I'm approached with the question (and keep in mind, it's usually a couple data points and little else) ""I am getting started, with no other money do I fund a retirement or emergency account?"" I often suggest they put the funds into a Roth, in a money market fund, and treat it like an emergency account. If there's in fact an emergency, there's no penalty to withdraw the deposit and we're talking peanuts for interest today.  With no emergency, two things could happen: A) As the account grows beyond what's needed for emergencies, the excess can be invested long term. B) As the investor earns more money and saves up enough to have a true emergency account separate from the IRA, the Roth can be fully invested long term. The 'Bad idea' stems from the view that one is using their Roth as an emergency account, which of course is bad. The subtle difference is one has no retirement savings and puts their Emergency account into the otherwise unused Roth. As time passes, they've protected more funds to grow tax free.  In the end, the most important thing is whether the person is saving and not tapping for simple non-emergency things. I'd rather see a guy with $25K in his Roth and no other funds than to have $5000 in his bank account because every time it gets larger he feels compelled to spend it.  My answer to Matt is to treat it for now as you intended, low risk, CD or cash (money market)." Another, completely different way to look at your huge mistake: It's not a huge mistake. You're getting your money out of a restricted account.  You're paying taxes now (plus an extra tax of 10%) to regain some of your privacy of where you're putting your money. You're paying up now as a trade-off to paying much later, when the rules can be completely different and the tax rates much higher. You're deciding not to put the money into another restricted account, which has yearly reporting requirements to the IRS above and beyond those required with taxable earnings. It's a cost-benefit analysis whether you roll your money over to an IRA account or not.  You hear about the benefits a lot more often than you hear about the costs, which it what I'm introducing you to with my answer.