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
- Citation: Estate Duty (Koh Peng Yam, Deceased) (Remission) Order 2001
- Enacting Formula: Made by the Minister for Finance in exercise of powers under section 50 of the Estate Duty Act
- Key Provisions: Section 1 (Citation); Section 2 (Remission of estate duty)
- Legislative Instrument Number: SL 38/2001 (No. S 38)
- Date Made: 26 December 2000
- Commencement Date: Not specified in the extract (commencement typically follows publication/notification)
- Status: Current version as at 27 Mar 2026
What Is This Legislation About?
The Estate Duty (Koh Peng Yam, Deceased) (Remission) Order 2001 is a narrow, case-specific remission order made under the Estate Duty Act (Chapter 96). In plain terms, it provides that a particular amount of estate duty—payable under the Estate Duty Act in respect of a specified estate interest—is to be remitted (i.e., cancelled) rather than paid.
This type of instrument is best understood as an administrative and fiscal relief mechanism. Estate duty is a tax imposed on certain estates upon death. While the Estate Duty Act sets out the general charging and assessment framework, section 50 of the Act empowers the Minister for Finance to grant remission in appropriate circumstances. The 2001 Order exercises that power for a specific deceased person and a specific estate share.
Importantly, the Order does not rewrite the Estate Duty Act or create a general rule for all estates. Instead, it targets a defined liability: “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.” The legal effect is therefore limited and precise—remission of that sum for that particular estate event.
What Are the Key Provisions?
Section 1 (Citation) provides the formal name by which the Order may be cited. This is standard legislative drafting: it helps practitioners, courts, and government agencies refer to the instrument consistently in correspondence, filings, and legal submissions.
Section 2 (Remission of estate duty) is the operative provision. It states that “the sum of $1,238.40 payable under the Act” on a particular share is “hereby remitted.” The remission is tied to a specific factual matrix: the share is in the estate of Oey Siok Lian, Deceased, and that share is said to pass on the death of Koh Peng Yam on 19th December 1997.
From a practitioner’s perspective, the precision of the description matters. The remission is not for “estate duty generally,” nor for all liabilities arising from the death of Koh Peng Yam. Rather, it is for a defined amount and a defined estate interest. This means that any claim to remission must align with the same estate share and the same death event, and the amount remitted must be exactly the sum stated in the Order.
Enacting authority and legal basis. The enacting formula indicates that the Minister for Finance makes the Order “in exercise of the powers conferred by section 50 of the Estate Duty Act.” Section 50 is therefore the statutory gateway that authorises the remission. In legal practice, this is crucial: it confirms that the remission is not merely an administrative concession, but a legally valid exercise of delegated power under the parent Act. If a remission were challenged, the existence and scope of section 50 would be central to the validity analysis.
Making date and formalities. The Order was “Made this 26th day of December 2000” by LIM SIONG GUAN, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Finance. While the extract does not specify commencement, the making date and the citation as an SL provide the formal legal identity of the instrument. Practitioners should also consult the legislation timeline and publication details to confirm when the remission took effect for procedural purposes (for example, whether it affects payment already made, or only future collection).
How Is This Legislation Structured?
The Order is extremely short and consists of:
(1) Section 1: Citation.
(2) Section 2: Remission of estate duty (the operative relief).
There are no schedules, definitions, or procedural provisions in the extract. The structure reflects the purpose of the instrument: to grant a specific remission without the need for broader interpretive or administrative machinery. In practice, the remission’s effect is straightforward—once the Order applies to the specified liability, the stated sum is remitted.
Who Does This Legislation Apply To?
This Order applies to the estate duty liability described in section 2. The remission is directed at “the sum of $1,238.40 payable under the Act” on a particular share in the estate of Oey Siok Lian, Deceased that passes on the death of Koh Peng Yam on 19 December 1997. Accordingly, the beneficiaries, executors, administrators, or estate representatives dealing with that estate duty assessment would be the practical parties affected.
Because the remission is expressly tied to named individuals and a specific death date, it does not apply generally to other estates or other assessments. A lawyer advising a different estate would need to check whether a separate remission order exists for that estate, or whether relief can be sought through other mechanisms under the Estate Duty Act or related administrative processes.
Why Is This Legislation Important?
Although the Order is brief, it is legally significant for two reasons. First, it demonstrates the operation of the Estate Duty Act’s remission power under section 50. Practitioners should view such orders as concrete examples of how delegated fiscal relief can be granted by subsidiary legislation. Second, it provides certainty for the specific taxpayer/estate liability: the stated amount is not payable because it is remitted.
From a compliance and estate administration standpoint, remission orders can materially affect cash flow and settlement of estate accounts. Estate duty liabilities often need to be accounted for in estate administration, including in the preparation of statements to beneficiaries and in the finalisation of executorship or administration. If a remission is granted, the estate may be able to close accounts on a different basis, and any overpayment or outstanding balance may need to be reconciled with the tax authority.
In dispute scenarios, the existence of a remission order can also be decisive. If an assessment includes the remitted sum, the estate’s representatives should rely on the Order to argue that the liability has been cancelled to the extent specified. Conversely, if the assessment includes amounts beyond the remitted sum, the Order’s narrow wording means that only the exact $1,238.40 on the specified share should be treated as remitted. Practitioners should therefore carefully compare the assessment breakdown with the Order’s description to determine the scope of relief.
Related Legislation
- Estate Duty Act (Chapter 96) — in particular, section 50 (power to grant remission)
- Estate Duty Act timeline / legislative history — for context on how remission powers are exercised and updated
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.