How might my SMSF breach the sole purpose test?
SMSFs can invest in commercial property. They can even lease the property to a member’s own business at market rates. All of these things are clear from the specific rules. But even if an SMSF followed all these rules to the letter, it would still be important to understand why the fund was leasing the property to the member’s business.
What if the SMSF got a better offer from another potential tenant (well above market rent)? If the SMSF is really all about saving for retirement, it might make more sense to take up that offer (subject to meeting any contractual obligations to an existing tenant).
Or what if the SMSF only bought the property because the member’s business was in a bind? It needed new premises, none were available to rent in the area, and the fund bought the property despite that particular investment not being sensible for the members’ retirement savings?
Both of these would be breaches of the sole purpose test despite appearing to meet all the super rules.
And in both cases, it hinged on “why” rather than “what” the super fund did.
SMSFs get special scrutiny when it comes to the sole purpose test, particularly with transactions that involve family or private companies and trusts. That’s because it can be really difficult to untangle what members want or need personally from what they would do if they were really only focused on optimising a pot of money for retirement.
A simple way to self check
Use this quick test before you act:
If I was managing someone else’s money, and trying to maximise their retirement savings, would I do this?
If the honest answer is no, because a key driver for doing it is your personal convenience, your business needs or helping someone you care about, pause and reassess.