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)
- Enacting Authority: Minister for Finance (acting through powers conferred by the Estate Duty Act)
- Key Enabling Provision: Section 50 of the Estate Duty Act
- Commencement Date: Not stated in the extract (Order dated 26 December 2000; published as SL 38/2001)
- Legislative Citation: SL 38/2001
- Effective/Current Version Status: “Current version as at 27 Mar 2026” (per the platform display)
- Core Operative Provision: Remission of a specified sum of estate duty
What Is This Legislation About?
The Estate Duty (Koh Peng Yam, Deceased) (Remission) Order 2001 is a targeted remission order made under Singapore’s Estate Duty framework. In practical terms, it authorises the remission (i.e., waiver) of a specific amount of estate duty that would otherwise be payable under the Estate Duty Act in respect of a particular estate.
Estate duty is a tax imposed on the estate of a deceased person. While the Estate Duty Act sets out the general charging and assessment rules, remission orders are used to deal with exceptional or case-specific circumstances—such as administrative errors, hardship considerations, or other reasons recognised by the Minister under the statutory remission power.
This particular Order is narrow in scope: it does not create a general rule for all estates. Instead, it identifies the deceased (Koh Peng Yam, deceased), the relevant death date (19 December 1997), the estate interest concerned (a share in the estate of Oey Siok Lian, deceased), and the exact sum to be remitted ($1,238.40). The legal effect is that the specified estate duty amount becomes not payable.
What Are the Key Provisions?
Section 1 (Citation) provides the short title of the instrument. This is a standard provision used to identify the Order in legal documents and proceedings. For practitioners, the citation is important when referencing the remission in correspondence with the tax authority, in submissions, or in court/tribunal filings.
Section 2 (Remission of estate duty) is the operative clause. 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.” In other words, the Order directs that the specified amount of estate duty—linked to a particular share interest and a particular death event—should be treated as remitted.
Several practical legal points arise from the wording of Section 2:
- Remission applies to a specified sum: The Order does not remit “all estate duty” or an open-ended amount. It remits a precise figure ($1,238.40). This precision matters for accounting, estate administration, and any dispute about whether additional amounts are covered.
- Remission is tied to a specific estate interest: The duty is “payable under the Act on the share in the Estate of Oey Siok Lian, Deceased.” This indicates that the tax liability being addressed relates to a particular share passing on the death of Koh Peng Yam.
- Remission is tied to a specific death date: The Order references “passing on the death of Koh Peng Yam on 19th December 1997.” This anchors the remission to the relevant estate duty event and helps prevent misapplication to other deaths or other periods.
Enabling power and ministerial discretion: The enacting formula states that the Minister for Finance makes the Order “in exercise of the powers conferred by section 50 of the Estate Duty Act.” While the extract does not reproduce section 50, the reference is legally significant. It confirms that remission is not an administrative courtesy but a statutory power exercised by the Minister. For practitioners, this means the remission is legally valid only because the statutory conditions and procedure under section 50 are presumed to have been satisfied.
Formality and date of making: The Order is “Made this 26th day of December 2000” and signed by LIM SIONG GUAN, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Finance. The date of making can be relevant for determining the timeline of administrative actions, especially where there are questions about when the remission took effect relative to assessment, payment, or enforcement steps.
How Is This Legislation Structured?
This instrument is extremely short and consists of:
- Section 1: Citation (short title).
- Section 2: Remission of estate duty (the substantive operative provision).
There are no schedules, definitions, or procedural provisions in the extract. The structure reflects the Order’s purpose: to implement a single remission decision for a single case. In practice, such orders are often used to correct or relieve a specific tax liability without reopening the broader assessment framework under the Estate Duty Act.
Who Does This Legislation Apply To?
The Order applies to the estate duty liability described in Section 2. It is therefore directed at the relevant estate duty “payable under the Act” on the specified share in the estate of Oey Siok Lian, deceased, passing on the death of Koh Peng Yam on 19 December 1997.
Although the Order does not name beneficiaries or administrators, the remission would typically benefit the persons who would otherwise bear the estate duty burden for that share—often the estate, the executor/administrator, or the persons assessed as liable under the Estate Duty Act’s collection and liability rules. Because the remission is limited to a defined sum and defined circumstances, it does not automatically extend to other shares, other estates, or other amounts assessed in the same or related matters.
Why Is This Legislation Important?
Although the Order is narrow, it is important for practitioners because it demonstrates how Singapore’s estate duty system can be adjusted through statutory remission. For estate administrators and counsel, remission orders can materially affect the final estate accounts, the distribution of assets, and the resolution of tax disputes.
From an enforcement and compliance perspective, the key practical consequence is that the specified amount of estate duty should not be collected (or, if already paid, may require consideration of the appropriate administrative treatment—such as whether refund or credit mechanisms apply under the broader tax administration framework). The legal effect of “hereby remitted” is to remove the obligation to pay that amount as a matter of law.
For lawyers handling estate administration, the Order is also useful as a precedent of how remission is drafted: it is case-specific, quantifies the exact sum, and ties the remission to a particular death event and estate interest. When advising clients, counsel should therefore verify that any remission order relied upon matches the relevant estate duty assessment details (death date, estate, and share interest) and that the amount remitted corresponds exactly to the liability in question.
Finally, the Order’s reliance on section 50 of the Estate Duty Act highlights the statutory basis for ministerial relief. This matters in any scenario where a taxpayer or estate administrator needs to justify why a tax liability should be reduced or extinguished. The remission order provides the direct legal authority.
Related Legislation
- Estate Duty Act (Chapter 96) — including section 50 (the enabling provision for remission orders)
- Estate Duty Act (timeline / legislative history) — for understanding the context and 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.