Can I open a Solo 401(k) if I am an independent contractor but also work part-time as an employee?
If you have self-employment income you can open a Solo 401k.  Your question is unclear as to what your employment status is.  If you are self-employed as an independent contractor, you can open a Solo 401k.  You can still do this even if you also earn non-self-employment income (i.e., you are an employee and receive a W-2).  However, the limits for contributions to a Solo 401k are based on your self-mployment income, not your total income, so if you have only a small amount of self-employment income, you won't be able to contribute much to the Solo 401k.  You may be able to reduce your taxes somewhat, but it's not like you can earn $1000 of self-employment income, open a Solo 401k, and dump $5000 into it; the limits don't work that way. A Solo 401k plan requires self-employment income; you cannot put wages into it. I'm in a similar situation as I have a consulting business in addition to my regular IT job.  I called the company who has my IRA to ask about setting up the Individual 401k and also mentioned that I contribute to my employer's 401k plan. The rep was glad I brought this up because he said the IRS has a limit on how much you can contribute to BOTH plans. For me it would be $24K max (myAge >= 50; If you are younger than 50, then the limit might be lower). He said the IRS penalties can be steep if you exceed the limit. I don't know if this is an issue for you, but it's something you need to consider. Be sure to ask your brokerage firm before you start the process.
"Linkedlinked, You might want to seriously take another look at the links that Chris provided you.  Specifically the ones on the IRS website: http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=99921,00.html From the IRS website: Businesses must weigh all these   factors when determining whether a   worker is an employee or independent   contractor. Some factors may indicate   that the worker is an employee, while   other factors indicate that the worker   is an independent contractor. There is   no “magic” or set number of factors   that “makes” the worker an employee or   an independent contractor, and no one   factor stands alone in making this   determination. Also, factors which are   relevant in one situation may not be   relevant in another. The keys are to look at the entire   relationship, consider the degree or   extent of the right to direct and   control, and finally, to document each   of the factors used in coming up with   the determination. Perhaps more importantly... pay attention to what happens if you're WRONG: Consequences of Treating an Employee as an Independent Contractor If   you classify an employee as an   independent contractor and you have no   reasonable basis for doing so, you may   be held liable for employment taxes   for that worker (the relief   provisions, discussed below, will not   apply). See Internal Revenue Code   section 3509 for more information. I would STRONGLY recommend that you and your partners give your accountant a call and discuss the matter.  They will be able to help you make the right decision. One of biggest mistakes businesses make in this are is to classify their employees as independent contractors.  The IRS (who happens to be hungry for money right now) comes in and says, ""Nooooooooo... those are employees."" ...and the COMPANY gets to pay the employment taxes.  I actually have person experience with this as I worked for a company this happened to.  Every contractor was re-classified as an employee except for two (myself and one other).  The key reason in that case was that none of the other contractors had any other clients. While I understand that you have other clients, I would still recommend talking to your accountant for an hour or so... just to be 100% sure. Sincerely, Andrew Smith TaxQueries.com" "&gt; Interests change. So do careers.   Of course. A janitor can become a landscaper, a teacher with teaching diplomas can end up as an accountant, an actor can become a great president of the USA (Ronald Reagan) and a business man can also become a great president of the USA (Trump!)  However, do you understand that Information Security is a highly specialized technical engineering field that requires tons of specific knowledge and understanding of technologies, protocols, cryptography, database, etc, etc, etc?  There's no way that Ronald Reagan, Trump or Susan can become a Chief Info Security officer, medical surgeon, rocket scientist, or even a Rabbi. Am I right?   These professions require many many years of specialized studies, residency/apprenticeship to get experience and dedication from the start to a life-long narrow and specialized field.  You don't need to be brilliant with specialized knowledge to be an accountant, actor, president of the USA, janitor or even a ""Vice president of sales"".  &gt; Undergrad is meaningless at that level and point in career.  This is not the point, and I said it already 18 times: I will hire a music major if they have the experience and knowledge needed for an unrelated job.  There's almost zero chances the Music major or Fashion major is the type to be an expert in security, so knowledgeable as to become the CHIEF Information Security Officer.  **And, again, based on the recent interview with Susan and her answers, anybody, even non-experts, can tell she has no clue about security.**  &gt;&gt; I also never agreed that she got the job due to connections:  &gt; So give me a possible way how Susan got her job.  Can you answer and guess the answer?  As for HR and contractors:  &gt;  Contractors give flexibility to staff up for projects and down again as conditions dictate, and are paid higher rates to compensate for the impermanence.  If contractors are more expensive than in-house employees, nobody will use contractors.  Trust me!!!! I also have to hire and work with contractors, in IT, where they really get paid well. They get ZERO benefits, ZERO bonuses, ZERO security, and many in-house employees in similar jobs, per-hour, get paid much more if you account their bonus, medical insurance, facilities, severance packages, training, etc, etc." "If you are the sole owner (or just you and your spouse) and expect to be that way for a few years, consider the benefits of an individual 401(k). The contribution limits are higher than an IRA, and there are usually no fees involved. You can google ""Individual 401k"" and any of the major investment firms (Fidelity, Schwab, etc) will set one up free of charge. This option gives you a lot of freedom to decide how much money to put away without any plan management fees. The IRS site has all the details in an article titled One-Participant 401(k) Plans. Once you have employees, if you want to set up a retirement plan for them, you'll need to switch to a traditional, employer-sponsored 401k, which will involve some fees on your part. I seem to recall $2k/yr in fees when I had a sponsored 401(k) for my company, and I'm sure this varies widely.  If you have employees and don't feel a need to have a company-wide retirement plan, you can set up your own personal IRA and simply not offer a company plan to your employees. The IRA contribution limits are lower than an individual 401(k), but setting it up is easy and fee-free. So basically, if you want to spend $0 on plan management fees, get an individual 401(k) if you are self-employed, or an IRA for yourself if you have employees." "Yes, it can be done.  See ""Scenario 4"" at Isolating 401(k) basis - Fairmark.com.  Though that article is primarily about getting after-tax 401(k) money into a Roth IRA, Scenario 4 applies to the scenario you are asking about. At a high level you do exactly what you say -- transfer the pre-tax money from your trad IRAs to a 401(k) (btw, a solo 401(k) will work for this also -- doesn't have to be your employer's -- but then you need to be eligible to set up a solo 401(k)).  This is allowed because qualified plans can't accept after after-tax traditional IRA money, so the transfer overrides the usual pro rata rules and ""strains"" the basis out and leaves it in the trad IRA.   However, there's a mismatch between the intent of Congress (as indicated by the Joint Committee on Taxation report on the law) and the actual text of the law as detailed in the Fairmark article which while it doesn't stop you from doing this adds a couple of hoops to jump through if you want to be in total compliance with the law." While the 55 exception noted by Joe and JB makes this less of a worry, it's worth noting that to retire early most people would need additional investments beyond a maxed out 401(k).  As most people make more money later in life it is generally worth putting what you can in a 401(k) now and later when your savings would max out a 401(k) then you can start adding money to accounts that are not tax-advantaged.  These additional funds can be used during the bridge period. Run the numbers yourself as these assumptions won't be true for all individuals, but this may be the piece you are missing. You can borrow against a 401k for 5 years. This defers any penalty fees that the IRS mandates. Put the cash back in your 401k within those 5 years. you can also solo administer 401k plans even if you have an unincorporated business, so you can start one of those if you have any other form of cashflow, and there may be a way to get the other plan rolled into your solo one.  http://www.irs.gov/publications/p560/ch04.html#en_US_publink10009053 "Those advantages you've described (tax treatment and employee match) are what you receive in exchange for ""locking up"" the money. Ultimately it's a personal choice of whether that tradeoff makes sense for you situation (I'll echo the response that the real answer to your question is planning). Roth options (either 401K or IRA) may be good compromises for you, since you can withdraw those contributions (but not the earnings) without any penalty, since you've already paid taxes on them. Another avenue to explore may be a self-directed IRA or a Solo 401(k), depending on your circumstances and eligibility. In both cases, there are plan providers that structure the plan to allow you to use the money to invest in things besides traditional stocks, bonds, and mutual funds (often referred to as ""checkbook control"" accounts). They are very commonly used among Real Estate investors (this thread from BiggerPockets has quite a bit of info). You'd want to consult with an accountant or financial adviser before going down that path." Couple of points about being a consultant in the US: It sounds like the rules for what you can deduct may be more lax in Italy.  For example, you can deduct a certain percentage of your home for work but the rules are relatively strict on your use of that space and how much is deductible.  Also things like clothes, restaurants, phones, car use, etc must follow IRS guidelines to be deductible.  This often means they are used exclusively for work and are required for work.  A meal you eat by yourself is not generally deductible, for example.  Any expense you would have had anyway if you were not working is generally not deductible. A contractor in the US can organize in various ways, including sole proprietorship, an S-corp, and a C-corp.  Each has different tax and regulatory implications.  In the simple case of a sole proprietorship, one must pay not only regular income tax but also self-employment tax, which is the part of social security and medicare tax normally paid for by one's employer.  Estimated taxes must be paid to the government quarterly and then the actual amount due synced up at the end of the year (with the government sending you the difference or vice versa). Generally speaking contractors may set aside more money pre-tax for retirement and have better investment options.  This is because solo 401(k) retirement accounts are cost-effective and flexible and the contractor can set aside the full $18K pre-tax as well as having the company contribute generously (pre-tax) to the retirement account.  Contractors can also easily employ spouses and set aside even more. The details of how frequently you are paid as a contractor and how much notice (if any) the company must give you before terminating your relationship are negotiated between you and the company and are generally pretty flexible.  You could get paid your whole year salary in a lump sum if you wanted.  The company that is paying you will not normally give you any benefits whatsoever...in this way it is the same situation as it is in Italy. By the way the three points you mention in your edit are definitely not true in the US.