A mandate contract with a student or pupil under 26: no ZUS contributions, work without a work permit, and the line beyond which penalties begin

The Social Insurance Institution (ZUS) has expanded its inspections of companies that employ foreigners under mandate contracts and do not pay contributions, relying on the pupil or student status of a person under the age of 26. The exemption itself is lawful and there is no reason to give it up. The problem begins where the status is bought: a paid entry on the list of students of a post-secondary school, a certificate and a translation — without a single hour of study. Below we explain exactly how the contribution exemption works, which foreigners in education may work without a work permit, where the line of abuse lies, and how much crossing it actually costs.

1. The contribution exemption — what the provision actually says

The basis is art. 6 ust. 4 of the Act of 13 October 1998 on the social insurance system (consolidated text: Dz.U. 2026 poz. 199). The provision reads: persons performing work under a mandate contract „are not subject to compulsory old-age and disability pension insurance if they are pupils of post-primary schools or students, until they reach the age of 26”.

Three consequences that decide everything in practice:

• This is not a relief for the employer, but an exclusion on the side of the contractor. It applies by operation of law, requires no application and no consent from ZUS. Nobody „grants” it and nobody „awards” it.
• The whole package falls away. The absence of compulsory old-age and disability pension insurance means no accident insurance, no possibility of joining sickness insurance and no health insurance on the basis of that mandate contract. The contract carries no contributions at all — on either side.
• It applies solely to a mandate contract (and to other contracts for the provision of services to which the provisions on mandate contracts apply). A student on an employment contract is fully insured — regardless of age and status. A statutory exception is the activating contract for a nanny, to which the exemption does not apply (art. 6 ust. 4a u.s.u.s.).

2. Why 26 years of age and why specifically a pupil or student

The construction is based on the assumption that a person in education is not yet a full participant in the labour market: gainful work is for them an addition to education, not a source of subsistence and not a basis for building pension capital. Three decisions of the legislator follow from this.

The criterion is status, not age alone

The exemption is not due to „every young person”. It is due to a person in education. A twenty-three-year-old without pupil or student status is subject to insurance on general terms. Age is only an upper limit, so that the privilege does not become open-ended.

The limit of 26 years

It corresponds to the typical point at which education ends, extended by second-cycle studies or a repeated year. The same limit appears later in tax law, which is the source of the most common misunderstanding in conversations with employers.

Only a mandate contract, never employment

This distinction is deliberate. An employment relationship presupposes permanence and subordination, so it does not fit the assumption of „additional work alongside study”. That is why a sham mandate contract performed under the conditions of employment collapses twice over: first as a mandate contract, second as a basis for the contribution exemption.

3. Who is not a pupil or a student within the meaning of the provision

The scope of the concept is narrower than employers assume. The exemption does not cover:

• doctoral candidates — a participant of a doctoral school is not a student within the meaning of this provision;
• participants of postgraduate studies — also before reaching the age of 26;
• persons whose status has already expired.

Student status lasts from matriculation until the day the diploma examination is taken or until the day of removal from the list of students. Removal takes effect as of the date of removal, and not until the end of the academic year — from that day the contribution obligation arises by operation of law, regardless of whether the principal found out about it. This single detail is the most frequent cause of arrears in companies that acted in good faith.

A student of a post-secondary school, on the other hand, falls within the category of a pupil of a post-primary school — and it is precisely this path that is today a field of abuse, because it is the shortest and cheapest to „obtain”.

4. Work legalisation: which people in education do not need a work permit

Contributions are one thing, the legality of work is another. A foreigner who is exempt from contributions need not at all be exempt from the obligation to hold a work permit, and vice versa. The basis here is the Act of 20 March 2025 on the conditions for the admissibility of entrusting work to foreigners on the territory of the Republic of Poland (Dz.U. 2025 poz. 621, in force since 1 June 2025) and the Regulation of the Minister of Family, Labour and Social Policy of 20 November 2025 issued on its basis (Dz.U. 2025 poz. 1620, in force since 1 December 2025).

Precondition: a residence title entitling the holder to work

Before the exemptions are examined at all, it must be established whether the foreigner holds a residence title enabling them to take up work — the catalogue is set out in art. 3 ust. 3 of the Act (including selected visas, the voivode's stamp confirming submission of an application free of formal defects, a temporary residence permit, a residence document of another Schengen state, stay under visa-free travel). Without this step, any discussion of exemptions is pointless.

Statutory exemptions relevant to persons in education — art. 3 ust. 5 of the Act

Work without a work permit and without a declaration on entrusting work may be performed by a foreigner who:

• is a graduate of a post-primary school referred to in art. 18 ust. 1 pkt 2 of the Education Law, and holds documents obtained in Poland confirming vocational qualifications (pkt 2);
• is a graduate of studies completed at a higher education institution having its seat in Poland (pkt 3) — both full-time and part-time;
• holds the academic degree of doctor conferred in the Polish system of higher education and science (pkt 4);
• is a doctoral candidate in a doctoral school run by an entity having its seat in Poland (pkt 5).

Exemptions from the regulation — pupils and students during their education

A person who is still studying benefits from the exemptions under Regulation Dz.U. 2025 poz. 1620. The most important ones for the subject of this article are:

Note the asymmetry, which in practice surprises employers: a part-time (extramural) student during their studies does not fall within § 1 pkt 12 — the exemption concerns full-time studies. Meanwhile, after completing studies, the exemption under art. 3 ust. 5 pkt 3 of the Act covers graduates regardless of the mode of study. The same person may therefore need a work permit as a part-time student and cease to need one on the day of their diploma defence. On the ZUS side it is the opposite: during part-time studies the contribution exemption applies (up to the age of 26), and after the defence it expires immediately.

5. Three independent tracks: residence, work, contributions

This is the heart of the whole issue and the most frequent source of HR errors. The three legal regimes must be checked separately, because they have different conditions and different cut-off dates.

Practical conclusion: the defence of a diploma thesis is good news for work legalisation, and for ZUS settlements it is the moment when the contribution obligation arises. The day of the 26th birthday changes nothing in work legalisation, but it ends the contribution exemption. HR must have both dates in the calendar.

6. What the scheme inspected by ZUS consists of

Reports on inspections reveal a repeatable mechanism: the employer engages a foreigner under the age of 26 under a mandate contract, and then arranges their entry on the list of students of a post-secondary school, financing document translations, entry fees and certificates. The contractor does not attend classes. The employer applies the exemption under art. 6 ust. 4 u.s.u.s., does not register them for insurance and does not pay contributions, and allocates part of the saved burden to a higher „take-home” rate, which makes the offer competitive against companies that settle honestly.

The scale of the savings explains the motivation. With full contributions on a mandate contract, the burden reaches the order of about 20 percent on the principal's side and about 22–23 percent on the contractor's side, depending on whether sickness insurance is joined, plus a 9 percent health contribution. For a team of several dozen people this amounts to sums counted in hundreds of thousands of zlotys per year.

Why a certificate does not protect you

The exemption is based on a fact („is a pupil”), and not on a document („has a certificate”). A certificate of entry on the list of students is only evidence — and rebuttable evidence at that. The authority does not have to challenge the validity of the paper: it demonstrates the absence of genuine education (no attendance, no credits, no actual teaching activity in respect of that person) and questions the existence of the condition itself. This path is simpler than proving that the contract was a sham.

7. How much it costs the employer — penalties and amounts

Contribution arrears for five years

The primary consequence is not a penalty, but the retroactive establishment of the insurance obligation and the assessment of contribution arrears. Contribution receivables become time-barred after 5 years from the day on which they became due (art. 24 u.s.u.s.), so an inspection reaches much further back than the current year — this is the main multiplier of the amount. The payer is also liable for the part of the contributions financed by the insured person, and recovering it from a former contractor who has left Poland is in practice illusory.

Late payment interest

Charged from the day following the payment deadline, at the rate of late payment interest on tax arrears applicable in a given period. Over a five-year horizon it constitutes a significant, not a marginal, component of the liability.

An additional charge of up to 100 percent of the contribution arrears

In the event of failure to pay contributions or payment of an understated amount, ZUS may impose on the payer an additional charge of up to 100 percent of the unpaid contributions (art. 24 u.s.u.s.). It is financed exclusively from the payer's own funds and cannot be passed on to the insured person. A fictitious pupil status is precisely the type of factual situation — deliberate and organised action, not an arithmetical error — in which the authority reaches for the upper end of the range.

A fine of up to 46 000 zł

Under art. 98 ust. 1 u.s.u.s., a contribution payer or a person obliged to act on their behalf who fails to fulfil the obligation to pay contributions on time, fails to report the required data or reports untrue data, gives untrue explanations or refuses to give them, frustrates or obstructs an inspection, fails to keep contribution records or fails to send declarations and reports on time — is subject to a fine of up to 46 000 zł. Liability is personal: it also applies to a member of the management board and to the person running HR, if they were obliged to act on behalf of the payer. Separate attention should be paid to obstructing an inspection — it is a self-standing offence, so waiting out ZUS summons adds a separate sanction to the main case.

Criminal liability under art. 219 of the Criminal Code

Infringement of the provisions on social insurance by failing to report — even with the consent of the person concerned — the required data, or by reporting untrue data affecting the right to benefits or their amount, is punishable by a fine, restriction of liberty or imprisonment of up to 2 years. The foreigner's consent to the scheme does not exclude liability — the provision expressly provides for this. Where there is an organised circulation of certificates of non-existent education, depending on the findings in the given case, the provisions on certifying an untruth in a document and on using such a document also come into play, as well as liability on the part of the institution issuing the certificates.

The risk of reclassifying a mandate contract as an employment relationship

If the work was performed under conditions characteristic of employment, full employee contributions are added to the contribution arrears, and with them the minimum wage, overtime supplements and holiday equivalents. The case then ceases to concern ZUS alone.

8. What the foreigner himself loses

This is the thread that is least discussed in accounts of inspections, and for our clients it is the most important. The person written into the scheme is not its beneficiary, but its second victim.

• No health insurance for the whole period — no real access to benefits financed from public funds, despite performing work.
• No contribution history — and therefore no simplest proof of performing work in residence proceedings. In a case concerning a single permit for temporary residence and work, and in the case of a permanent residence permit, the authority examines whether the employment is genuine and what the source of income is; a gap in ZUS records is often a basis for doubt.
• No insurance periods relevant to future benefits, including entitlements acquired in Poland and subsequently settled in another country.
• Risk on the work legalisation side — if the basis for work was an exemption linked to full-time student status and that status turned out to be fictitious, it is not only the settlement of contributions that is called into question, but the very legality of the work performed.

9. How to use the exemptions safely

The exemption under art. 6 ust. 4 u.s.u.s. and the exemptions from the obligation to hold a work permit are lawful and there is no reason to give them up. Risk arises only where the status is bought or out of date. Minimum checks on the employer's side:

1. Verify the status at the source, not with the contractor. A certificate directly from the school or higher education institution; in the case of a foreign institution — a translation and a check of whether the institution actually provides education.
2. Check the status of the higher education institution, not only of the student. From 1 July 2026, after the expiry of the episodic provision, in the case of a full-time student it must be established whether the unit conducting the studies is approved for the purpose of admitting foreigners or whether it is not subject to the approval requirement.
3. Verify periodically, not once. At least once a semester, with a contractual obligation to report the loss of status immediately and a sanction for breaching it.
4. Enter two dates into the HR system: the 26th birthday and the expected date of the diploma defence or completion of education. Both end the contribution exemption by operation of law.
5. Do not finance entries, school fees or translations for the contractor. The fact that the employer paid for them is for the authority the strongest evidence that the aim was not education, but avoidance of a public levy.
6. Treat a school indicated by an intermediary as a warning sign. If the institution is „arranged” by an agency or by the employer itself rather than by the contractor, the scheme is in practice indefensible.
7. Separate the three tracks in your documentation. A separate note for residence, a separate one for the basis of work legalisation, a separate one for the basis of the contribution exemption — each with its expiry date.
8. Check that the mandate contract is genuine. No fixed hours, no subordination and no attendance records typical of employment — otherwise the risk is twofold.