Statute Details
- Title: Estate Duty (Koh Peng Yam, Deceased) (Remission) Order 2001
- Act Code: EDA1929-S38-2001
- Type: Subsidiary Legislation (SL)
- Authorising Act: Estate Duty Act (Chapter 96)
- Authorising Provision: Section 50 of the Estate Duty Act
- Enacting Date / Made Date: 26 December 2000
- SL Citation: No. S 38
- Commencement: Not stated in the extract (practitioners should confirm in the official gazette/legislation record)
- Key Provisions (from extract): Section 1 (Citation); Section 2 (Remission of estate duty)
- Status: Current version as at 27 March 2026
What Is This Legislation About?
The Estate Duty (Koh Peng Yam, Deceased) (Remission) Order 2001 is a targeted remission order made under the Estate Duty Act (Chapter 96). In plain terms, it provides that a specific amount of estate duty payable under the Estate Duty Act—linked to a particular deceased person and a particular share in an estate—is to be remitted (i.e., cancelled or forgiven).
This type of legislation is not a general reform of estate duty rules. Instead, it is an administrative and remedial instrument. It is designed to address a particular liability calculation or payment position in a named estate, where the Minister for Finance exercises statutory power to remit duty in the circumstances contemplated by section 50 of the Estate Duty Act.
From a practitioner’s perspective, the order is best understood as a formal legal mechanism that alters the final financial outcome for a specific estate duty payer. It does not create new tax rates or change the substantive framework of estate duty. Rather, it operates as a one-off (or case-specific) relief measure.
What Are the Key Provisions?
Section 1 (Citation) provides the short title of the Order: “Estate Duty (Koh Peng Yam, Deceased) (Remission) Order 2001”. Citation provisions are standard in subsidiary legislation and are mainly relevant for referencing the instrument in submissions, correspondence, and legal documents.
Section 2 (Remission of estate duty) is the operative provision. It states that “the sum of $1,238.40 payable under the Act on the share in the Estate of Oey Siok Lian, Deceased, passing on the death of Koh Peng Yam on 19th December 1997 is hereby remitted.” This wording is crucial: it identifies (i) the amount remitted, (ii) the estate duty “share” to which the duty relates, (iii) the relevant deceased persons (Oey Siok Lian and Koh Peng Yam), and (iv) the date of death that triggers the duty position (19 December 1997).
Practically, the remission operates to eliminate the duty liability of $1,238.40 that would otherwise be payable under the Estate Duty Act. The order’s phrasing “payable under the Act” indicates that the duty was computed and was due, but the Minister’s statutory power is used to remit it in full. For lawyers advising executors, administrators, beneficiaries, or estate duty agents, this means the remission should be treated as a legally binding cancellation of that amount—subject to any procedural requirements that may exist under the Estate Duty Act or administrative practice (for example, how remission is reflected in assessments, notices, or settlement accounts).
Enacting formula and statutory authority are also important. The Order is made “in exercise of the powers conferred by section 50 of the Estate Duty Act.” This signals that the remission is not discretionary in the general sense; it is grounded in a specific statutory power. Accordingly, any challenge or reliance on the remission should focus on whether the Minister acted within the scope of section 50 and whether the remission is properly recorded and applied to the identified duty amount and estate circumstances.
Finally, the Order includes the formal “Made this 26th day of December 2000” date and the signature of the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Finance (LIM SIONG GUAN). While this is not a substantive provision, it confirms the formal validity of the instrument and the identity of the signatory acting for the relevant authority.
How Is This Legislation Structured?
The Order is structured in a very concise format typical of remission orders. It contains:
(a) A citation provision (Section 1), allowing the instrument to be referenced by its short title; and
(b) A single operative provision (Section 2), which specifies the remission amount and the precise duty context to which it applies.
There are no “Parts” or complex schedules in the extract. The entire legal effect is contained in the single remission statement in Section 2. This simplicity is consistent with the nature of remission orders: they are designed to provide clear, unambiguous relief for a defined liability.
Who Does This Legislation Apply To?
This Order applies to the estate duty position arising from the death of Koh Peng Yam on 19 December 1997, specifically in relation to a share in the Estate of Oey Siok Lian, Deceased. The remission is directed at “the sum of $1,238.40 payable under the Act” on that share. Therefore, the practical beneficiaries of the remission are those who would bear the estate duty liability for that share—typically the estate, the executor/administrator in settling the estate’s liabilities, or the persons responsible for paying the duty under the Estate Duty Act’s assessment and collection framework.
Because the Order is named and fact-specific, it does not apply broadly to all estates or all estate duty payers. It is limited to the identified estate duty liability described in Section 2. Lawyers should treat it as a case-specific relief instrument rather than a precedent for general remission claims.
Why Is This Legislation Important?
Although the Order is short, it can be highly significant in practice. Estate duty matters often involve complex calculations, assessment processes, and settlement of liabilities before distribution of assets. A remission order can directly affect the amount available for distribution and the final accounting between the estate and beneficiaries.
From an enforcement and compliance standpoint, the Order provides certainty: the duty amount of $1,238.40 is remitted. This means that any attempt to collect that amount (or to treat it as still outstanding) would be inconsistent with the legal effect of the Order. For practitioners, this is particularly relevant when reconciling estate duty statements, responding to queries from tax authorities, or finalising estate accounts and beneficiary distributions.
More broadly, the Order illustrates how the Estate Duty Act’s remission power operates. Section 50 (as referenced in the enacting formula) empowers the Minister for Finance to remit estate duty in appropriate circumstances. While the extract does not describe the factual basis for remission, the existence of such a power is important for advising clients who may seek relief where there are administrative errors, exceptional circumstances, or other grounds that fall within the statutory remission framework.
Finally, the Order’s status as “current version as at 27 March 2026” indicates that the instrument remains in force and continues to govern the remission it grants. For legal research and due diligence, practitioners should rely on the official version status and confirm that no later amendments or revocations affect the remission.
Related Legislation
- Estate Duty Act (Chapter 96) — in particular, section 50 (the enabling provision for remission orders)
- Estate Duty Act timeline / legislation history — for version control and understanding the evolution of estate duty and remission powers
Source Documents
This article provides an overview of the Estate Duty (Koh Peng Yam, 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.