Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 124

Meeting the work test for contributions

I’ve had a paradigm shift! Just when I thought I could confidently predict the ATO’s view on meeting the work test to make contributions, they have come back and surprised me!

Let me explain. I have been assisting a client where the ATO wants to charge her excess contributions tax. My client is over the age of 65 and at the time she made the contribution, she had not met the work test. My argument was that as she had not met the work test at the time she made the contribution, the trustee should not have accepted the contribution. However, the ATO has taken the view that as she has an SMSF and is self-employed, she would have known that she would satisfy the work test at a later date in the financial year. I did not see that coming!

The need to be ‘gainfully employed’

The timing of contributions has caused a great deal of confusion for SMSF trustees, members and industry professionals. The superannuation law states that once an SMSF member is aged 65 or over but is less than 75, they can only make superannuation contributions into their SMSF if they are gainfully employed on at least a part time basis during the financial year in which the contributions are made.

The definition of ‘gainfully employed’ under the superannuation law means to be employed or self-employed for gain or reward in any business, trade, profession, vocation, calling, occupation or employment. The concept of gain or reward envisages receipt of remuneration such as a salary or wages, business income, bonuses, commissions, fees or gratuities, in return for personal exertion. It does not include the passive receipt of income such as rent, trust distributions or dividends. Therefore, if a member only receives passive income, they would not meet the gainful employment test. Unpaid work also does not meet the definition of gainful employment.

The term ‘part-time’ means to be gainfully employed for at least 40 hours in a period of not more than 30 consecutive days in a financial year. So if you work 10 hours per week in one month or 10 hours over four days, that would be sufficient.

The ‘paid work’ condition only has to be met once in each financial year you make the contribution, after turning 65. Once you have met it, you do not need to be gainfully employed for the rest of the financial year or need to meet the work test again each time you make a contribution into your SMSF.

Timing difference between public fund and SMSF

Based on the ATO’s interpretation in my client’s case on the work test, it seems to depend on whether you are making contributions into an SMSF or a public superannuation fund and whether you are self employed.

If you are making contributions into an APRA regulated superannuation fund, then you must meet the work test prior to making your first contribution after turning 65. This is because the trustee of the fund will need to be satisfied that you have met the work test in order to allow you to contribute into the fund.

If you plan on making contributions into your SMSF, then it seems that as long as you have met the work test once in the financial year after you turned 65, you can contribute. This is especially important for members who are self employed. If you know that you will be in part-time paid employment at some time during the year, after turning 65, you can make contributions into your SMSF even though you may not have worked part-time at the time you make the contribution. Of course, if you assumed that you will work that year (after turning 65) and then fell ill and therefore were unable to work at all, then the contribution would need to be returned to the member within 30 days of the SMSF trustee becoming aware of the member’s illness.

The ATO’s decision in my client’s case seems to have wider applications. It seems to me that if you have an SMSF, as long as you meet the work test in the financial year that you make a contribution, it is not a contravention; regardless of whether the contribution was made before or after you satisfied the test.

 

Monica Rule is an SMSF specialist and author. Her website is www.monicarule.com.au. This article is for educational purposes and does not consider the needs of any individual.

 

  •   28 August 2015
  • 3
  •      
  •   

RELATED ARTICLES

Tax paid by your SMSF can be returned to your dependants

Are you paying tax by not starting a super pension?

A guide to excess non-concessional super contributions

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

It’s time for LICs to die

A high-profile dividend cut and a prominent fund manager’s apology have reignited a long-running debate. If investors can access similar exposures more cheaply and efficiently elsewhere, what exactly is keeping LICs alive?

The retirement scorecard: how many of these questions can you answer?

From the maths of retirement, estimating spending and picking the right asset allocation to survive a poor decade, here are the questions every retiree – current or future – should be able to answer for themselves.

Testamentary trusts: Treasury has picked the wrong reading

A decades-old estate planning tool has survived one tax crackdown only to be caught by another. The surprise isn't who the reform is targeting, but who could end up paying the price for drafting choices made years ago.

How the typical Australian Family could save $844,350 in taxes

The value of a testamentary trust is not determined by wealth alone. Depending on circumstances, it can reduce the tax burden on inherited income, create efficiencies and help build intergenerational wealth.

The housing slide could become a crash

House prices are sliding across Australia, yet the most dangerous ingredient for a housing crash is still missing. If job losses surge amid growing economic risks, today's correction could become a historic property downturn.

Will investors be better or worse off under new housing tax changes?

Housing tax reforms have sparked warnings of market turmoil and promises of greater fairness. But after modelling nearly two decades of property data, the results suggest winners and losers may not be who many investors expect.

Latest Updates

SMSF strategies

Division 296: the initial moves to make before the windows close

What if the best superannuation strategy isn't about earning more, but acting before your options disappear? Several overlooked planning windows are narrowing, with consequences that can last for decades.

Planning

Avoid unnecessary CGT with this estate planning clause

A simple estate plan can create a ticking time bomb. One overlooked clause can pit spouses against children, delay inheritances, and potentially leave a family facing an unexpected tax bill worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Exchange traded products

The hidden trade-off in fixed income ETFs

Some investment trade-offs are immediately visible. Others are embedded in the way a portfolio is constructed. Understanding the difference may explain why similar-looking investments can produce surprisingly different results.

Retirement

The mortgage free retirement is fading

What happens when a generation reaches retirement carrying obligations previous generations largely avoided? New research suggests we may need to rethink both how much we need in retirement and what life could look like.

Retirement

The key question to inspire a confident and purposeful retirement

Most people spend decades planning for retirement. Far fewer plan for what happens when they get there. The difference may explain why so many find the transition harder and less fulfilling than expected, despite careful preparation.

Latest from Morningstar

Making the case for a 'good enough' portfolio

Some investors spend years chasing the perfect strategy. Others choose a path that’s simply good enough and move on. Which approach is more likely to deliver both better outcomes and a happier financial life over the long run?

Investment strategies

Is the US market as expensive as CAPE says?

Many investing ideas survive for decades. But that does not make them right. A famous valuation measure implies that US shares are dangerously expensive, but the evidence may point to a very different conclusion.

Sponsors

Alliances

  • ASA-Logo-RGB-ActiveGreen-web.png

© 2026 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.