what if a former employer contributes to my 401k in the year following my exit?
The vast majority of individual taxpayers in the United States operate on a cash basis of accounting. This means that the assignment of deductions or income to tax year is based on the date of the paycheck.  So the money in that early January 2016 paycheck has been correctly assigned to the 2016 tax year. This is unfortunate for you because you will receive a W-2 for 2016 showing that you had a retirement account. Knowing exactly how many paychecks there are in a year can be very import to know when trying the reach or avoid some thresholds. Even quitting the previous pay period might not have helped. I have seen some companies payout unused vacation, sick and severance over several paychecks. They didn't give you it all in one lump sum, they did it 80 hours a paycheck until the balance owed to the employee was zero. "Publication 590a covers this in a fairly specific manner. Page 11, section ""Are You Covered by an Employer Plan?"", specifies: The Form W-2 you receive from your employer has a box   used to indicate whether you were covered for the year.   The “Retirement Plan” box should be checked if you were   covered. So, by default, if that's checked, you're covered.  590 does go into more detail, though. Assuming you're covered under a Defined Contribution plan (a 401k for example): Defined contribution plan. Generally, you are covered   by a defined contribution plan for a tax year if amounts are   contributed or allocated to your account for the plan year   that ends with or within that tax year.  Tax Year: Tax year. Your tax year is the annual accounting period   you use to keep records and report income and expenses   on your income tax return. For almost all people, the tax   year is the calendar year. Further, they cover issues related to an employee leaving Dec. 31 very specifically: A special rule applies to certain plans in which it is not   possible to determine if an amount will be contributed to   your account for a given plan year. If, for a plan year, no   amounts have been allocated to your account that are attributable   to employer contributions, employee contributions,   or forfeitures, by the last day of the plan year, and   contributions are discretionary for the plan year, you are   not covered for the tax year in which the plan year ends. If,   after the plan year ends, the employer makes a contribution   for that plan year, you are covered for the tax year in   which the contribution is made. Example: Example. Mickey was covered by a profit-sharing plan   and left the company on December 31, 2014. The plan   year runs from July 1 to June 30. Under the terms of the   plan, employer contributions do not have to be made, but   if they are made, they are contributed to the plan before   the due date for filing the company's tax return. Such contributions   are allocated as of the last day of the plan year,   and allocations are made to the accounts of individuals   who have any service during the plan year. As of June 30,   2015, no contributions were made that were allocated to   the June 30, 2015, plan year, and no forfeitures had been   allocated within the plan year. In addition, as of that date,   the company was not obligated to make a contribution for   such plan year and it was impossible to determine   whether or not a contribution would be made for the plan   year. On December 31, 2015, the company decided to   contribute to the plan for the plan year ending June 30,   2015. That contribution was made on February 15, 2016.   Mickey is an active participant in the plan for his 2016 tax   year but not for his 2015 tax year. Mickey is in a similar (but different) circumstance, and it's clear from the IRS's treatment of his circumstance that you would be in the same boat (just a year less off) - but be aware given Mickey's situation that it's theoretically possible for them to make another contribution next year, as Mickey had, depending on when their plan year/etc. ends. So - from the IRS's point of view, everything you said the company did is correct.  They paid you in January, contributed to your 401k as a result of that paycheck, and thus you were officially considered covered for 2015." According to the IRS, you can still put money in your IRA. Here (https://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Plan-Participant,-Employee/Retirement-Topics-IRA-Contribution-Limits) they say: Can I contribute to an IRA if I participate in a retirement plan at work? You can contribute to a traditional or Roth IRA whether or not you participate in another retirement plan through your employer or business. However, you might not be able to deduct all of your traditional IRA contributions if you or your spouse participates in another retirement plan at work. Roth IRA contributions might be limited if your income exceeds a certain level. In addition, in this link (https://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/IRA-Deduction-Limits), the IRS says: Retirement plan at work: Your deduction may be limited if you (or your spouse, if you are married) are covered by a retirement plan at work and your income exceeds certain levels. The word 'covered' should clarify that - you are not covered anymore in that year, you just got a contribution in that year which was triggered by work done in a previous year. You cannot legally be covered in a plan at an employer where you did not work in that year.
It turns out that my logic was faulty. I wasn't aware that RRSP contributions and RRSP deductions are independent. There's no reason to split up my RRSP contributions across the two years. In my original plan, I was going to defer some RRSP contributions until 2017 so that they wouldn't be deducted from my 2016 income. This isn't necessary — nothing is forcing me to deduct the entire RRSP contribution on my taxes this year. I can still follow the plan I described in my question and max out my RRSP contribution this tax year by only deducting part of the contribution on this year's taxes See Started new job. Rollover previous employer 401k to new 401k, IRA or Roth IRA? for a start.  Kevin, the discussion is far more complex than you might think. Say your account grows by X, (pretend it's 10 if you wish) and your tax rate is Y (25%?). If you take the initial sum, tax it at Y, but then grow it X, the result is identical to doing it in the reverse order. So $1000 to start can grow to $10,000, then after tax, $7500. Or $1000 taxed to $750, then grow to $7500.  For pretax deposits, the key is that you deposit those contributions at your marginal rate, i.e. the rate you'd pay on the last $X taxed. But withdrawals start at zero.  In the perfect scenario, you will save 25-28% tax on deposits, but at retirement, enjoy taxation at 0%,10%,15% for a large portion or all of the withdrawals.  (Note, others can suggest rates will rise, and they may be right. My answer is based on the current tax structure.) A new earner, at 10 or 15% may be better off starting with Roth, and as they earn their way to 25% or higher slide over to pre-tax deposits. My 14 year old baby sits, and makes enough to fund a Roth, but pays no tax as she earns less than her own standard deduction for what that's worth. I am in a similar situation (sw developer, immigrant waiting for green card, no debt, healthy, not sure if I will stay here forever, only son of aging parents). I am contributing to my 401k to max my employer contribution (which is 3.5%, you should find that out from your HR).  I don't have any specific financial goal in my mind, so beside an emergency fund (I was recommended to have at least 6 months worth of salary in cash) I am stashing away 10% of my income which I invest with a notorious robot-adviser. The rate is 80% stocks, 20% bonds, as I don't plan to use those funds anytime soon. Should I go back to my country, I will bring with me (or transfer) the cash, and leave my investments here. The 401K will keep growing and so the investments, and perhaps I will be able to retire earlier than expected. It's quite vague I know, but in the situation we are, it's hard to make definite plans. I second this. You should be able to keep them in place. As far as I know, you can leave the HSA funds with the existing administrator indefinitely, unlike a 401k. I'm not certain of that rule, but I think that is accurate. It is possible the current administrator may include a maintenance fee or something, so watch it.  I left my employer 4 months ago and have kept my HSA with the same administrator. I don't recall hearing anything in the exit paperwork about a requirement to move, I haven't received anything in the mail telling me to move it, nor have any fees or other charges been implemented that would cause me to move. Yes, this is right.  It is what I am doing.  In fact, I took it one step further.  During my early career when I was able to deduct traditional IRA contributions, I made them and saved on taxes.  When my income got high enough that I could no longer deduct those contributions, I rolled all my traditional IRA's into my 401(k).  Now they are no longer subject to the pro-rata rule and I could begin with the backdoor Roths while continuing to contribute the max to my traditional 401(k). Thereafter it's pretty much the process you have described. "401k plans are required to not discriminate against the non-HCE participants, and one way they achieve this is by limiting the percentage of wages that HCEs can contribute to the plan to the average annual percentage contribution by the non-HCE participants or 3% whichever is higher.  If most non-HCE employees contribute only 3% (usually to capture the employer match but no more),  then the HCEs are stuck with 3%. However, be aware that in companies that award year-end bonuses to all employees, many non-HCEs contribute part of their bonuses to their 401k plans, and so the average annual percentage can rise above 3% at the end of year. Some payroll offices have been known to ask all those who have not already maxed out their 401k contribution  for the year (yes, it is possible to do this even while contributing only 3% if you are not just a HCE but a VHCE) whether they want to contribute the usual 3%, or a higher percentage, or to contribute the maximum possible under the nondiscrimination rules. So, you might be able to contribute more than 3% if the non-HCEs put in more money at the end of the year. With regard to NQSPs, you pretty much have their properties pegged correctly. That money is considered to be deferred compensation and so you pay taxes on it only when you receive it upon leaving employment. The company also gets to deduct it as a business expense when the money is paid out, and as you said, it is not money that is segregated as a 401k plan is. On the other hand, you have earned the money already: it is just that the company is ""holding"" it for you. Is it paying you interest on the money (accumulating in the NQSP, not paid out in cash or taxable income to you)?  Would it be better to just take the money right now, pay taxes on it, and invest it yourself? Some deferred compensation plans work as follows. The deferred compensation is given to you as a loan in the year it is  earned, and you pay only interest on the principal each year. Since  the money is a loan, there is no tax of any kind due on the money when you receive it. Now you can invest the proceeds of this loan and hopefully earn enough to cover the interest  payments due. (The interest you pay is deductible on Schedule A as an Investment Interest Expense).  When employment ceases,  you repay the loan to the company as a lump sum or in five or ten annual installments, whatever was agreed to, while the company pays you your deferred compensation less taxes withheld. The net effect is that you pay the company the  taxes due on the money, and the company sends this on to the various tax authorities as money withheld from wages paid.  The advantage is that you do not need to worry  about what happens to your money if the company fails; you have received it up front.  Yes, you have to pay the loan principal to the company but the company also owes you exactly that much money as unpaid wages. In the best of all worlds, things will proceed smoothly, but if not, it is better to be in this Mexican standoff rather than standing in line in bankruptcy court and hoping to get pennies on the dollar for your work." There is no segregation of amounts that you have in Rollover (Traditional) IRAs when it comes to figuring out how much of your basis is being converted from  your Traditional IRA into a Roth IRA.   So, yes, you will lose the benefit of being able to make nondeductible contributions to your Traditional IRA each year and rolling them over into a Roth IRA without tax consequences. Since your  401k amount may be  substantially more than the $5K basis you create each year, converting the 401k amount into a Traditional IRA will mean that most of the money converted to the Roth IRA is pre-tax money, and so you end up paying tax on most of the converted amount. For a 401(k), only contributions that you make for the current tax year through payroll deduction are tax-deductible.  Those contributions are subtracted off of your income for your W-2 Box 1 income amount.  If you make a manual contribution to your 401(k) outside of that, it is not tax deductible, and there is nowhere on your Form 1040 to deduct it. Your commuter benefits are also paid for out of payroll deduction and deducted on your W-2, so this is not an option, either. You could contribute to a traditional IRA for last year up to your tax return deadline, and deduct the amount on Form 1040 Line 32.  However, because you have access to a retirement plan at work, your IRA contribution is only tax deductible if your income is below certain limits.