Statute Details
- Title: Estate Duty (Koh Choon Joo, Deceased) (Remission) Order 2001
- Act Code: EDA1929-S420-2001
- Type: Subsidiary Legislation (SL)
- Authorising Act: Estate Duty Act (Chapter 96)
- Authorising Provision: Powers conferred by section 49 of the Estate Duty Act
- Enacting Formula: Minister for Finance makes the Order under section 49 of the Estate Duty Act
- Citation: Estate Duty (Koh Choon Joo, Deceased) (Remission) Order 2001
- Key Provisions: Section 1 (Citation); Section 2 (Remission of estate duty)
- Legislative Instrument Number: SL 420/2001
- Date Made: 30 August 2001
- Commencement Date: Not stated in the extract (instrument made on 30 August 2001; published/dated 4 September 2001 as SL 420/2001)
- Status: Current version as at 27 March 2026 (per the legislation platform display)
What Is This Legislation About?
The Estate Duty (Koh Choon Joo, Deceased) (Remission) Order 2001 is a targeted remission order made under Singapore’s Estate Duty framework. In essence, it relieves a specific amount of estate duty that would otherwise be payable under the Estate Duty Act in relation to the estate of Koh Choon Joo, who died on 6 September 1997.
Estate duty is a tax imposed on the estate of a deceased person, subject to the rules in the Estate Duty Act. However, the Act also provides a mechanism for the remission (i.e., reduction or cancellation) of estate duty in appropriate circumstances. This Order is an example of that mechanism being used for a particular estate and a particular set of facts—namely, donations made to charitable organisations.
Practically, this Order does not rewrite the general estate duty regime. Instead, it operates as a case-specific administrative relief: it identifies the amount payable under the Act and remits that sum because of the circumstances described in the Order.
What Are the Key Provisions?
Section 1 (Citation) provides the formal name by which the Order may be cited. While this is standard drafting, it is important for practitioners because it enables precise reference in correspondence, submissions, and internal tax file documentation.
Section 2 (Remission of estate duty) is the substantive provision. It states that “The sum of $519,788.12 payable under the Act on the donations made to charitable organisations and passing on the death of Koh Choon Joo on 6th September 1997 is hereby remitted.” This language does two things at once:
- Identifies the amount: $519,788.12.
- Links the remission to a specific factual basis: donations made to charitable organisations, and the death event of Koh Choon Joo on 6 September 1997.
In plain terms, the Order confirms that, for the estate duty computation relating to those charitable donations, the specified amount that would otherwise be payable is cancelled. The remission is therefore not a general reduction across all components of the estate duty liability; it is tied to the donations and the death date described.
Legal effect and scope of remission. Because the Order is made under section 49 of the Estate Duty Act, it should be understood as an exercise of statutory discretion by the Minister for Finance. The remission is expressed as “hereby remitted,” which indicates a direct legal consequence: the tax authority should treat the specified sum as no longer payable. For practitioners, this is typically relevant to (i) settlement of accounts with the Comptroller of Estate Duty (or the relevant tax administration function), (ii) finalisation of estate duty assessments, and (iii) ensuring that any outstanding payment obligations are adjusted accordingly.
Procedural and drafting points. The Order is made by the Minister for Finance and includes a “Made this 30th day of August 2001” line, with the signatory being LIM SIONG GUAN, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Finance. While the extract does not show an explicit commencement clause, the instrument’s publication as SL 420/2001 (dated 4 September 2001) suggests that it was intended to take effect upon making/publishing, subject to the general rules applicable to subsidiary legislation. In practice, the key question for a lawyer is not the commencement date alone, but whether the remission applies to the estate duty liability already assessed or payable in respect of the 1997 death. The wording in section 2 indicates it remits the sum “payable under the Act” in relation to that estate.
How Is This Legislation Structured?
This Order is extremely concise and consists of:
- Section 1: Citation (how the Order is referred to).
- Section 2: Remission of estate duty (the substantive relief).
There are no schedules, definitions, or additional procedural provisions in the extract. The structure reflects the nature of remission orders: they are typically drafted to state the legal basis and the precise relief granted, without re-stating the general provisions of the Estate Duty Act.
Who Does This Legislation Apply To?
The Order applies to the estate duty liability arising from the estate of Koh Choon Joo, who died on 6 September 1997. It is not a law of general application to all taxpayers; rather, it is a person-specific and transaction-specific remission.
More specifically, the remission is tied to donations made to charitable organisations. Therefore, the beneficiaries of the remission are effectively the estate and/or the persons responsible for settling the estate duty liability (such as executors, administrators, or trustees, depending on the estate’s administration structure). The Order’s relief is directed at the amount payable “on the donations” in that estate duty context.
Why Is This Legislation Important?
Although the Order is short, it is important for practitioners because it demonstrates how Singapore’s estate duty system can provide tailored relief through subsidiary legislation. For lawyers advising executors or estate administrators, such remission orders can materially affect the final estate duty payable and the timing of settlement with the tax authority.
From a compliance and litigation-risk perspective, the Order also matters because it provides a clear legal basis for adjusting the estate duty liability. If an assessment or computation included the amount of $519,788.12 as payable, the remission order should be used to correct the position. Failure to account for a remission order can lead to unnecessary overpayment, disputes over final liability, or delays in closing the estate.
Finally, the Order is a useful reference point for understanding the practical operation of section 49 of the Estate Duty Act. Even without the full text of section 49 in the extract, the enacting formula confirms that the Minister for Finance has statutory power to remit estate duty. For practitioners, this can be relevant when advising on whether remission may be sought in other circumstances, or when interpreting how remission orders are drafted and what they typically cover (i.e., a specified sum, linked to defined facts).
Related Legislation
- Estate Duty Act (Chapter 96) — in particular, section 49 (the authorising provision for remission orders)
- Estate Duty Act (timeline / legislative history) — for versioning and context (as referenced by the platform navigation)
Source Documents
This article provides an overview of the Estate Duty (Koh Choon Joo, Deceased) (Remission) Order 2001 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the official text for authoritative provisions.