Is there legal reason for restricting someone under 59-1/2 from an in-service rollover from a 401K to an IRA?
"Yes, this is restricted by law.  In plain language, you can find it on the IRS website (under the heading ""When Can a Retirement Plan Distribute Benefits?""): 401(k), profit-sharing, and stock bonus plans Employee elective deferrals (and earnings, except in a hardship distribution) -- the plan may permit a distribution when you: •terminate employment (by death, disability, retirement or other severance from employment); •reach age 59½; or •suffer a hardship. Employer profit-sharing or matching contributions -- the plan may permit a distribution of your vested accrued benefit when you: •terminate employment (by death, disability, retirement or other severance from employment); •reach the age specified in the plan (any age); or •suffer a hardship or experience another event specified in the plan. Form of benefit - the plan may pay benefits in a single lump-sum payment as well as offer other options, including payments over a set period of time (such as 5 or 10 years) or a purchased annuity with monthly lifetime payments.  Source: https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/plan-participant-employee/when-can-a-retirement-plan-distribute-benefits If you want to actually see it in the law, check out 26 USC 401(k)(2)(B)(i), which lists the circumstances under which a distribution can be made.  You can get the full text, for example, here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/401 I'm not sure what to say about the practice of the company that you mentioned in your question.  Maybe the law was different then?" You're going to find a lot of conflicting or vague answers on the internet because there are a lot of plan design elements that are set by the plan sponsor (employer).  There are laws that mandate certain elements and dictate certain requirements of plan sponsors, many of these laws are related to record keeping and fiduciary duty.  There is a lot of latitude for plan sponsors to allow or restrict employee actions even if there is no law against that activity.   There are different rules mandated for employee pre-tax contributions, employee post-tax contributions, and employer contributions.  You have more flexibility with regard to the employer contributions and any post tax contributions you may have made; your plan may allow an in-service distribution of those two items before you reach age 59.5. While your HR department (like most -all- HR departments) is not staffed with ERISA attorneys and CPAs it is your HR department and applicable plan documents that will lay out what an employee is permitted to do under the plan. "I don't think there's a rule -- (I can't comment) but Brick cited IRS rules...but IMO Brick missed one thing -- @ashur668 is not looking for a distribution, but is looking for a rollover. My best guess:  that this part of the ruleset is not well defined, and your (and my) employer have chosen to interpret any withdrawl as a ""distribution"", even if better characterized a rollover. A few months ago, I went so far as to explore if I could use a loophole -- my company had just gone through a merger; I was hoping I could rollover some or maybe all of my 401k to my IRA (I remember now, it would have been everything before starting roth 401k contributions).  My company asserted this was not permitted, and further asserted that the rumors I had heard were mistaken that when we went through a company spin-off a few years before, that nobody under 59 1/2 was permitted to roll over. I did a quick search and found IRS topic 413  As far as I can tell, this topic is silent on the matter at hand. Topic 413 referred me to IRS Publication 575, where I started looking at the section on rollovers.  I read some of it then got bored. Note that we're one step removed -- we are reading IRS publications and interpretations of IRS rules.  I don't know that anybody here has read the actual tax law.  There may be something in there that prevents companies from rolling over before 59 1/2 that is not well codified in IRS publications."
This situation, wanting desperately to have access to an investment vehicle in a 401K, but it not being available reminds me of two suggestions some make regarding retirement investing: This allows you the maximum flexibility in your retirement investing.  I have never, in almost 30 years of 401K investing, seen a pure cash investment, is was always something that was at its core very short term bonds. The exception is one company that once you had a few thousand in the 401K, you could transfer it to a brokerage account. I have no idea if there was a way to invest in a money market fund via the brokerage, but I guess it was possible. You may have to look and see if the company running the 401K has other investment options that your employer didn't select. Or you will have to see if other 401K custodians have these types of investments. Then push for changes next year. Regarding external IRA/Roth IRA: You can buy a CD with FDIC protection from funds in an IRA/Roth IRA. My credit union with NCUA protection currently has CDs and even bump up CDs, minimum balance is $500, and the periods are from 6 months to 3 years. "There are certain allowable reasons to withdraw money from a 401K.  The desire to free your money from a ""bad"" plan is not one of them.   A rollover is a special type of withdrawal that is only available after one leaves their current employer.  So as long as you stay with your current company, you cannot rollover.  [Exception: if you are over age  59.5] One option is to talk to HR, see if they can get a expansion of offerings.  You might have some suggestions for mutual funds that you would like to see.  The smaller the company the more likely you will have success here.  That being said, there is some research to support having few choices.  Too many choices intimidates people. It's quite popular to have ""target funds""  That is funds that target a certain retirement year.  Being that I will be 50 in 2016, I should invest in either a 2030 or 2035 fund.  These are a collection of funds that rebalances the investment as they age.  The closer one gets to retirement the more goes into bonds and less into stocks.   However, I think such rebalancing is not as smart as the experts say.  IMHO is almost always better off heavily invested in equity funds.  So this becomes a second option.  Invest in a Target fund that is meant for younger people.  In my case I would put into a 2060 or even 2065 target. As JoeTaxpayer pointed out, even in a plan that has high fees and poor choices one is often better off contributing up to the match.  Then one would go outside and contribute to an individual ROTH or IRA (income restrictions may apply), then back into the 401K until the desired amount is invested.   You could always move on to a different employer and ask some really good questions about their 401K.  Which leads me back to talking with HR.  With the current technology shortage, making a few tweaks to the 401K, is a very cheap way to make their employees happy. If you can score a 1099 contracting gig, you can do a SEP which allows up to a whopping 53K per year.  No match but with typically higher pay, sometimes overtime, and a high contribution limit you can easily make up for it." "we can then start taking penalty free withdrawals from it? There's no ""we"" in IRA. There's ""I"". That stands for ""Individual"". So your wife's age has no influence whatsoever on your ability to make qualified distributions from your IRA. The reason courts order distributions from IRAs is due to the community property laws of various States or other considerations that make spouses entitled to the amounts in the IRAs. However, you're talking about family law here, not tax law. For Federal tax purposes, a distribution ordered by the court doesn't trigger penalty (but is taxable), but any other distribution has to follow the regular qualification criteria." "Assuming you are below retirement age, you typically cannot roll money from a Roth IRA into a 401k nor transfer money out of a 401k until you leave the company. Your best bet is to leave your exising roth ira separate from your 401k.  A good strategy for retirement accounts is whenever able (typically when you switch jobs) roll your 401k into a ""rollover IRA"" (not a roth).   Then you can manage your investments with more options than the 5-20 funds provided in the 401k.   I would recommend against rolling funds into a 401k because of the lack of options in most 401k plans. Also, 401k is pre-tax and Roth is post-tax.   Pre and post tax investments don't mix before withdrawal unless you do a conversion of some kind." "I spent some time searching, and couldn't find the answer written explicitly in IRS regulations.   What I did find was this chart from the irs showing that nonqualified distributions from a Roth 401k are pro-rated between contributions and earnings.  It is well documented that you can't withdraw any money early or tax free (even contributions) from a Roth 401k (""Designated Roth Account"" in IRS parlance) that has made any money. source You can do a direct rollover from a ""Designated Roth Account"" to a Roth IRA and the basis  describing contributions vs. earnings is preserved. source And there is plenty of evidence showing you can withdraw contributions from a Roth IRA without penalty. source All that being said, I can't find anything from the IRS that says this is a legitimate strategy." "Your funds are in a retirement account.  Withdrawals from your IRA will be penalized if you withdraw before you turn 59.5 years old, and you appear to be decades away from that age. The general advice I would give you is to pick a ""target year fund"" that targets the year you turn 59.5.  The stock market is more volatile, but its average gains will protect you from inflation just eating your funds.  Bonds are in counterpoint to your stocks - more stable, and protecting you from the chance that stocks dip right before you want to withdraw. Target year funds start with higher amounts of stock, and gradually rebalance towards bonds over time.  Thus, you take your market risks earlier while you can benefit from the market's gains, and then have stability when you actually would want to retire and depend on the savings." Once upon a time, money rolled over from a 401k or 403b plan into an IRA could not be rolled into another 401k or 403b unless the IRA account was properly titled as a Rollover IRA (instead of Traditional IRA - Roth IRAs were still in the future) and the money kept separate (not commingled) with contributions to Traditional IRAs. Much of that has fallen by the way side as the rules have become more relaxed.  Also the desire to roll over  money into a 401k plan at one's new job has decreased too --  far too many employer-sponsored retirement plans have large management fees and the investments are rarely the best available: one can generally do better  keeping ex-401k money outside a new 401k, though of course new  contributions from salary earned at the new employer perforce must be put into the employer's 401k. While consolidating one's IRA accounts at one brokerage or one fund family certainly saves on the paperwork, it is worth keeping in mind that putting all one's eggs in one basket might not be the best idea, especially for those concerned that an employee might, like Matilda, take me money and run Venezuela. Another issue is that while one may have diversified investments at the brokerage or fund family, the entire IRA must have the same set of beneficiaries: one cannot leave the money invested in GM stock (or Fund A) to one person and the money invested in Ford stock (or Fund B) to  another if one so desires.  Thinking far ahead into the future, if one is interested in making charitable bequests, it is the best strategy tax-wise to make these bequests from tax-deferred monies rather than from post-tax money. Since IRAs pass outside the will, one can keep separate IRA accounts with different companies, with, say, the Vanguard IRA having primary beneficiary United Way and the Fidelity IRA having primary beneficiary the American Cancer Society, etc. to achieve the appropriate charitable bequests. "Does your company offer a 401(k) and are you taking maximum advantage of it? 2015 limit is $18,000, an extra $5,500 if you are 50 or older.  The RMD shouldn't be too large, it depends on your age, of course. You're in no worse shape than anyone hitting age 70-1/2 and having to start taking their RMDs. If you are younger, your RMDs start pretty low. If I look at Pub 590, I find a 50 year old starts with a 34.2 divisor, less than 3% each year. At 60, it's 25.2, just under 4%.  Edit - someone around 30 will have a divisor around 53.3 the first year. Just under 2%. I don't know what you consider ""sizable,"" but much above $300K in that IRA and you'll have more come out than you can fund into a Roth. Regardless of the amount, the RMD is taxable. You just need to pay the tax from other funds if you wish to keep the money invested as it was.  You will pay the tax at your marginal rate, and that's it. This is the one downside of the inherited IRA, unlike regular money, it doesn't escape taxes. But, your dad put it in pre-tax (right?) so the amount you got is larger for that fact.  I'm sorry for your loss." Your assumptions are flawed or miss crucial details. An employer sponsored 401k typically limits the choices of investments, whereas an IRA typically gives you self directed investment choices at a brokerage house or through a bank account. You are correct in noticing that you are limited in making your own pre-tax contributions to a traditional IRA in many circumstances when you also have an employer sponsored 401k, but you miss the massive benefit you have: You can rollover unlimited amounts from a traditional 401k to a traditional IRA. This is a benefit that far exceeds the capabilities of someone without a traditional 401k who is subject to the IRA contribution limits. Your rollover capabilities completely gets around any statutory contribution limit. You can contribution, at time of writing, $18,000 annually to a 401k from salary deferrals and an additional $35,000 from employer contributions for a maximum of $53,000 annually and roll that same $53,000 into an IRA if you so desired. That is a factor. This should be counterweighed with the borrowing capabilities of a 401k, which vastly exceeds an IRA again. The main rebuttal to your assumptions is that you are not necessarily paying taxes to fund an IRA. You read it right. Todd's warning is well taken. I don't know the numbers involved, but have a brilliant suggestion that may help. A Solo 401(k) is simple to qualify for. Any bit of declared side income will do. Once the account is set up, a transfer from IRAs is simple. The Solo 401(k) can offer a loan provision as any other 401(k), and you can borrow up to 50% (max of $50K) for any reason with a 5 year payback. The standard rate is Prime+1%, the fee is minimal usually $50-$100.  All the warnings of IRA 'loans' apply, but the risk of job loss (the largest objection to 401 loans) isn't there. The fact that you have 6 months to set this up is part of what prompts this suggestion.  Note: Any strategies like this aren't for everyone. There are folk who need to access quick cash, and this solves the issue in two ways, both low rate and simple access. Phil already stated he is confident to return the money, the only thing that prompted my answer is there's real risk the 60 days a bit too short for any business deal. If you are working for a small company, the expense ratios on the funds in the 401k account are likely much higher than you can get with a similar IRA. Depending on your income, whether you are married and want to contribute to a spouse's IRA, your limit on what can be contributed to an IRA may vary, but the compelling reason to contribute to a 401k is that the contribution limit is higher ($17,500 vs $5,500 for people on the lower end of the income scale) so you may need to contribute to a 401k to meet your retirement savings goals. "One reason is that you can trade in the IRA without incurring incremental taxes along the way.  This may be especially important if you intend to shift your portfolio allocation as you approach retirement.  For instance, gradually selling stocks and buying bonds can incur taxes if you do it in a taxable account (if you do it while you have other income and thus may face capital gains taxes).  Also, if you have mutual funds in a taxable account, they may distribute capital gains to you that you'll owe taxes on, but holding the funds in an IRA will shield you from that. There are also some other side benefits to IRAs because they are considered to ""not count"" for certain purposes when determining what you're worth.  For instance, if you go bankrupt, you could be forced to sell assets in taxable accounts to pay your creditors, whereas IRAs are protected in many cases.  Likewise, if you try to get financial aid to pay for college for your kids, money in an IRA won't be counted among your assets in determining your aid eligibility, potentially giving your kids access to more aid money. Finally, an especially prominent benefit is, paradoxically, the early withdrawal penalty.  For many people, part of the purpose of an IRA is to ""lock away"" their money and prevent themselves from accessing it until retirement.  Early withdrawal penalties provide a concrete consequence that psychologically deters them from raiding their retirement savings willy-nilly." Just the amount contributed to the Roth 401k that you rolled over, not the conversions from regular 401k/traditional IRA (for those there are holding period limitation of 5 year from conversion), the earning on it or the employer's match (neither of these can be withdrawn without penalty as a non-qualified withdrawal). However, I'd suggest not to withdraw from Roth IRA unless you're sleeping on a bench in a park and beg strangers for a piece of bread. This is the best retirement investment you can make while you're in the lower tax brackets, and withdrawing it would reduce dramatically your tax-free retirement income. "You have several questions in your post so I'll deal with them individually: Is taking small sums from your IRA really that detrimental? I mean as far as tax is concerned? Percentage wise, you pay the tax on the amount plus a 10% penalty, plus the opportunity cost of the gains that the money would have gotten.  At 6% growth annually, in 5 years that's more than a 34% loss.  There are much cheaper ways to get funds than tapping your IRA. Isn't the 10% ""penalty"" really to cover SS and the medicare tax that you did not pay before putting money into your retirement? No - you still pay SS and medicare on your gross income - 401(k) contributions just reduce how much you pay in income tax.  The 10% penalty is to dissuade you from using retirement money before you retire. If I ... contributed that to my IRA before taxes (including SS and medicare tax) that money would gain 6% interest. Again, you would still pay SS and Medicare, and like you say there's no guarantee that you'll earn 6% on your money.  I don't think you can pay taxes up front when making an early withdrawal from an IRA can you?  This one you got right.  When you file your taxes, your IRA contributions for the year are totaled up and are deducted from your gross income for tax purposes. There's no tax effect when you make the contribution. Would it not be better to contribute that $5500 to my IRA and if I didn't need it, great, let it grow but if I did need it toward the end of the year, do an early withdrawal? So what do you plan your tax withholdings against?  Do you plan on keeping it there (reducing your withholdings) and pay a big tax bill (plus possibly penalties) if you ""need it""?  Or do you plan to take it out and have a big refund when you file your taxes? You might be better off saving that up in a savings account during the year, and if at the end of the year you didn't use it, then make an IRA contribution, which will lower the taxes you pay.  Don't use your IRA as a ""hopeful"" savings account. So if I needed to withdrawal $5500 and I am in the 25% tax bracket, I would owe the government $1925 in taxes+ 10% penalty. So if I withdrew $7425 to cover the tax and penalty, I would then be taxed $2600 (an additional $675). Sounds like a cat chasing it's tail trying to cover the tax. Yes if you take a withdrawal to pay the taxes. If you pay the tax with non-retirement money then the cycle stops. how can I make a withdrawal from an IRA without having to pay tax on tax. Pay cash for the tax and penalty rather then taking another withdrawal to pay the tax.  If you can't afford the tax and penalty in cash, then don't withdraw at all. based on this year's W-2 form, I had an accountant do my taxes and the $27K loan was added as earned income then in another block there was the $2700 amount for the penalty. So you paid 25% in income tax for the earned income and an additional 10% penalty.  So in your case it was a 35% overall ""tax"" instead of the 40% rule of thumb (since many people are in 28% and 35% tax brackets) The bottom line is it sounds like you are completely unorganized and have absolutely no margin to cover any unexpected expenses.  I would stop contributing to retirement today until you can get control of your spending, get on a budget, and stop trying to use your IRA as a piggy bank.  If you don't plan on using the money for retirement then don't put it in an IRA.  Stop borrowing from it and getting into further binds that force you to make bad financial decisions. You don't go into detail about any other aspects (mortgage? car loans? consumer debt?) to even begin to know where the real problem is.  So you need to write everything down that you own and you owe, write out your monthly expenses and income, and figure out what you can cut if needed in order to build up some cash savings. Until then, you're driving across country in a car with no tires, worrying about which highway will give you the best gas mileage." The shareholders elect the board of directors who in turn appoint a CEO. The CEO is responsible for the overall running of the company. To answer your specific questions: Yes, Steve Jobs could make decisions that are harmful to the well-being of the company.  However, it's the responsibility of the board of directors to keep his decisions and behavior in check. They will remove him from his position if they feel he could be a danger to the company.