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.
Sounds you need to read up on S corp structures. I think this would benefit you if you generate income even after you physically stopped working which is incomes from membership fees, royalties % of customer revenue, middle man etc...  Under the Scorp, you as the sole member must earn a wage that fair and at current market value. You pay social security and Medicare on this wage. The interesting thing here is that an Scorp can pay out earning dividends  without having to pay payroll taxes but the catch is that you, as the sole employee must earn a fair wage.   As for paying the other member you may want to look into 1099 contract work plus a finders fee. The 1099 hourly wage does not require you to pay Medicare and SS.   The common fee I'm used to is 5% of gross invoice. Then you would pay her an hourly wage. The company then bills these hours multiplied by 2 or 3 (or whatever you think is fair) to the client. Deduct expenses from this and that's your profit.   Example. Contractor brings Client A which is estimated as a  100 hour project with $100 cost in supplies and requires 2 hours of your time @ $40/hr.   You quote 100 hours @ $50 to client, client agrees and gives you down payment.   You then present the contract work to your contractor, they complete the work in 100 hours and bill you at $25.   You pay your contractor 2500 plus the 5% ($250)  and your company earns $2070 (5000 - 2500 - 100-80)  And you'll earn $80 minus the payroll tax.   Then at the end of the quarter or year or however you want to do earning payouts your LLC- Scorp will write you a check for $2070 or whatever earning % you want to take. This is then taxed at your income tax bracket.   One thing to keep in mind is what is preventing this other person from becoming your competition? A partnership would be great motivation to try and bring in as much work under the LLC. But if you start shafting people then they'll just keep the work and cut you out. "Whether you can establish an HSA has nothing to do with your employment status or your retirement plan. It has to do with the type of medical insurance you have.  The insurance company should be able to tell you if your plan is ""HSA compatible"". To be HSA compatible, a plan must have a ""high deductible"" -- in 2014, $1250 for an individual plan or $2500 for a family plan. It must not cover any expenses before the deductible, that is, you cannot have any ""first dollar"" coverage for doctor's visits, prescription drug coverage, etc. (There are some exceptions for services considered ""preventive care"".) There are also limits on the out-of-pocket max. I think that's it, but the insurance company should know if their plans qualify or not. If you have a plan that is HSA compatible, but also have another plan that is not HSA compatible, then you don't qualify. And all that said ... If you are covered under your husband's medical insurance, and your husband already has an HSA, why do you want to open a second one? There's no gain. There is a family limit on contributions to an HSA -- $6,550 in 2014. You don't get double the limit by each opening your own HSA. If you have two HSA's, the combined total of your contributions to both accounts must be within the limit. If you have some administrative reason for wanting to keep separate accounts, yes, you can open your own, and in that case, you and your husband are each allowed to contribute half the limit, or you can agree to some other division.  I suppose you might want to have an account in your own name so that you control it, especially if you and your husband have different ideas about managing finances. (Though how to resolve such problems would be an entirely different question. Personally, I don't think the solution is to get into power struggles over who controls what, but whatever.) Maybe there's some advantage to having assets in your own name if you and your husband were to divorce. (Probably not, though. I think a divorce court pretty much ignores whose name assets are in when dividing up property.)  See IRS publication 969, http://www.irs.gov/publications/p969/index.html for lots and lots of details." Checkout the worksheet on page 20 of Pub 535.  Also the text starting in the last half of the third column of page 18 onward. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p535.pdf The fact that you get a W-2 is irrelevant as far as I can see.  Your self-employment business has to meet some criteria (such as being profitable) and the plan needs to be provided through your own business (although if you're sole proprietor filing on Schedule C, it looks like having it in your own name does the trick).  Check the publication for all of the rules. There is this exception that would prevent many people with full-time jobs on W-2 from taking the deduction: Other coverage. You cannot take the deduc­tion for any month you were eligible to partici­pate in any employer (including your spouse's) subsidized health plan at any time during that month, even if you did not actually participate. In addition, if you were eligible for any month or part of a month to participate in any subsidized health plan maintained by the employer of ei­ther your dependent or your child who was un­der age 27 at the end of 2014, do not use amounts paid for coverage for that month to fig­ure the deduction. (Pages 20-21).  Sounds like in your case, though, this doesn't apply. (Although your original question doesn't mention a spouse, which might be relevant to the rule if you have one and he/she works.) The publication should help.  If still in doubt, you'll probably need a CPA or other professional to assess your individual situation. "There are two types of 401(k) contributions: ""elective contributions,"" which are the part put in by the employee and ""nonelective contributions,"" which are the part put in by the company.  Elective contributions are summed across all the plans she is contributing to.  So she can contribute $18,000 minus whatever she put in her 403(b). Additionally she can contribute 20% of the net profit of the company (before the elective contributions) as nonelective contributions (these contributions must be designated as such). You will notice that the IRS document says 25%, but that's what you can do if her business is incorporated.  For a sole proprietorship, nonelective contributions  ends up being limited at 20% of profit. Additionally, the sum of these two and her contribution to her 403(b) cannot exceed $53,000. Example: line 31 of her schedule C is $30,000 and she has contributed $10,000 to her 403(b). Maximum contribution to her solo 401(k) is ($18,000 - $10,000) + 0.2 * $30,000 = $14,000 Her total contributions for the year are $10,000 from her 403(b) plus $14,000 in her solo 401(k).  This is less than $53,000 so this limit does not bind.  If she made a ton of 1099 money, her contribution maximum would follow the above until it hit $53,000 and then it would stop there. The IRS describes this in detail in Publication 560, which also has a worksheet for figuring out your maximum explicitly.  It's unpleasant reading and the worksheets are painful, but if you do it right, it will end up being as I just described it.  Using the language of that publication, hers is a ""qualified plan"" of the ""defined contribution"" variety." With this level of income, you might consider a Solo 401(k). It would allow you a much higher level of contributions and is more appropriate for your savings than the limited IRA deposits. It also offers a considerable number of options not available for IRAs. A loan for example. "if you have 401k with an employer already, has the following features: Your contributions are taxed That's only true if you're a high income earner. https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/2017-ira-deduction-limits-effect-of-modified-agi-on-deduction-if-you-are-covered-by-a-retirement-plan-at-work For example, married filing jointly allows full deduction up to $99,000 even if you have a 401(k). ""the timing is just different"" And that's a good thing, since if your retirement tax rate is less than your current tax rate, you'll pay less tax on that money." If you plan to continue contributing to a 401(k) and are no longer self-employed, then you need to start a new 401(k) at your new business.  You can't contribute to the old one any more.  About the money in the old one, you have a few options.   If both 401(k) plans have good investment options and low fees, then there's little reason to think one of these strategies is better than the other.  If, like me, at least one of your 401(k) providers has very few available funds and those funds have high expense ratios, then it's a good idea to move your money where the investments are best.  As a rule, IRA's are better than 401(k) plans because most IRA's will allow you to invest in practically anything you want while most 401(k) plans only allow you to invest in the funds that have taken your company's HR people to the best lobster dinners or went to the same school as them.  Most organizations do an absolutely horrible job at selecting a reasonable set of funds because the decision-makers generally have no finance background and no incentive to do a good job.  For that reason I like IRA's.   Of course, some solo 401(k) plans are also very good so just leaving it where it is may be best for you.  This has the added advantage of being ready to go if you end up self-employed again at some point. Your total salary deferral cannot exceed $18K (as of 2016). You can split it between your different jobs as you want, to maximize the matching.  You can contribute non-elective contribution on top of that, which means that your self-proprietorship will commit to paying you that portion regardless of your deferral. That would be on top of the $18K. You cannot contribute more than 20% of your earnings, though. So if you earn $2K, you can add $400 on top of the $18K limit (ignoring the SE tax for a second here). Keep in mind that if you ever have employees, the non-elective contribution will apply to them as well. Also, the total contribution limit from all sources (deferral, matching, non-elective) cannot exceed $53K (for 2016). I don't quite understand your thought process here.  First, in a tax-advantaged retirement account you are NOT allowed to engage in a transaction with yourself.   If you just want to run a business and be able to write off expenses, how is using the self-directed IRA relevant? You can either buy the condo using your tax-advantaged account and rent it out to regular tenants.  Or you buy the condo yourself using your own money and then operate your business so you can deduct business expenses from doing so.  401k's allow you to take a loan out of it, so you can look into that as well. You setup a self-directed solo 401k by paying a one time fee for a company to setup a trust, name you the sole trustee, and file it with the IRS. None of these companies offer TPA because it opens them up to profit leaching liability. After you have your trust setup, you can open a brokerage account or several with any of the big names you want (Vanguard, Fidelity, Ameritrade, etc), or just use the money to flip houses, do P2P lending, whatever, the world is your investment oyster. If the company has recurring fees you need to ask what is going on because if they aren't offering TPA services, then what the heck could they be charging you for? I did see one company, I think it was IRA Financial Group, that had the option of having a CPA do TPA for you for a recurring fee, but I would pass on that. The IRS administration requirements are typically just the 5500-EZ that you have to file as a hard copy by July 31 if your investments are worth more than $250k, on December 31. Yes, you have to get the actual form from the IRS, write on it with a pen and mail it to them every year, barbaric. You can either have your accountant do it or do it yourself. If you're below $250k just google solo 401k rule change two or three times a year and don't try to launder money. If anything, the rules will loosen with time, I don't imagine the Republican Congress cracking down on small business owners any time soon. I don't think anyone can give you a definitive answer without knowing all about your situation, but some things to consider: If you are on a 1099, you have to pay self-employment tax, while on a W-2 you do not. That is, social security tax is 12.4% of your income. If you're a 1099, you pay the full 12.4%. If you're W-2, you pay 6.2% and the employer pays 6.2%. So if they offer you the same nominal rate of pay, you're 6.2% better off with the W-2. What sort of insurance could you get privately and what would it cost you? I have no idea what the going rates for insurance are in California. If you're all in generally good health, you might want to consider a high-deductible policy. Then if no one gets seriously sick you've saved a bunch of money on premiums. If someone does get sick you might still pay less paying the deductible than you would have paid on higher premiums. I won't go into further details as that's getting off into another question. Even if the benefits are poor, if there are any benefits at all it can be better than nothing. The only advantage I see to going with a 1099 is that if you are legally an independent contractor, then all your business expenses are deductible, while if you are an employee, there are sharp limits on deducting employee business expenses. Maybe others can think of other advantages. If there is some reason to go the 1099 route, I understand that setting up an LLC is not that hard. I've never done it, but I briefly looked into it once and it appeared to basically be a matter of filling out a form and paying a modest fee. Source Sole trader   If you start working for yourself, you’re classed as a self-employed sole trader - even if you’ve not yet told HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC). As a sole trader, you run your own business as an individual. You can keep all your business’s profits after you’ve paid tax on them. You can employ staff. ‘Sole trader’ means you’re responsible for the business, not that you have to work alone.You’re personally responsible for any losses your business makes. Tax responsibilities   You must: You’re personally responsible for any losses your business makes. This is one condition which you would need to have a look. If you do some shoddy work and your client wants to recover the losses they can come after your personal money or property. LLPs have the same probelm too. And you pay NI and income tax on all of your profits.  If you have a partner then both can take out the profits of a limited company, if both are directors. The tax hit will be less as compared to a single person. Fidelity Investments offers Solo 401(k) plans without any management fees. The plan administrator is typically the employer itself (so, your business, or you as the principal manager). You (as the individual employee) are the participant. "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." OK, so first of all, employers don't set up IRAs.  IRA stands for Individual Retirement Account.  You can set up a personal IRA for yourself, but not for employees.  If that is what you're after, then just set one up for yourself - no special rules there for self employment. As far as setting up a 401(k), I'd suggest checking with benefits management companies.  If you're small, you probably don't have an HR department, so managing a 401(k) yourself would likely be overly burdensome.  Outsourcing this to a company which handles HR for you (maybe running payroll, etc. also), would be the best option.  Barring that, I'd try calling a large financial institution (Schwab, Fidelity, etc.) for clear guidance.