Statute Details
- Title: Estate Duty (Liauw Lih Sien, Sandy, Deceased) (Remission) Order 2001
- Act Code: EDA1929-S57-2001
- Type: Subsidiary Legislation (SL)
- Authorising Act: Estate Duty Act (Cap. 96)
- Authorising Provision: Section 50 of the Estate Duty Act
- Enacting date / Made date: 5 February 2001
- Commencement date: Not stated in the extract (typically effective upon making/commencement as per the Order)
- Key Sections: Section 1 (Citation); Section 2 (Remission of estate duty)
- Legislative status: Current version as at 27 March 2026 (per the platform display)
- Legislation number: SL 57/2001 (No. S 57)
What Is This Legislation About?
The Estate Duty (Liauw Lih Sien, Sandy, Deceased) (Remission) Order 2001 is a targeted remission order made under the Estate Duty Act (Cap. 96). In plain terms, it provides that a specific amount of estate duty payable under the Estate Duty Act—relating to a particular deceased person and particular estates/shares—is to be remitted (i.e., cancelled or forgiven) by the State.
Estate duty is a tax imposed on certain transfers of property upon death. While the Estate Duty Act establishes the general charging and assessment framework, remission orders are used to grant relief in defined circumstances. This Order is not a general tax reform; it is a narrow administrative/legal instrument addressing a particular liability arising from the death of Liauw Lih Sien, Sandy on 19 December 1997.
Practically, the Order matters to practitioners because it demonstrates how the remission mechanism operates: it identifies the exact duty amount, the relevant estates/shares, and the deceased person’s death date. For estate administration and tax dispute resolution, such specificity is crucial—remission is typically not presumed and must be grounded in the precise terms of the relevant order.
What Are the Key Provisions?
Section 1 (Citation) provides the formal name by which the Order may be cited. This is standard legislative drafting. For lawyers, citation matters when referencing the instrument in correspondence, submissions, or court/tribunal filings, particularly where remission is pleaded as a basis for adjustment of tax liabilities or for clearance of estate accounts.
Section 2 (Remission of estate duty) is the operative provision. It states that a defined sum of $33,662.29 payable under the Estate Duty Act on the “share in the Estate” of several deceased persons is remitted. The remission is expressly linked to the death of Liauw Lih Sien, Sandy on 19 December 1997.
The provision is also notable for the way it ties the remission to a particular “share” and to multiple estates/deceased persons. The Order refers to the following estates/deceased persons in connection with the share on which estate duty was payable:
- Estate of Liauw Ali Gunawan @ Ali Gunawan @ Liauw Swe Goan, Deceased
- Estate of Yap Sow Leng, Deceased
- Estate of Liauw Lih Ting, Sindy, Deceased
Although the extract does not explain the underlying factual matrix (for example, the property structure, beneficial interests, or how the “share” was treated under the Estate Duty Act), the legal effect is clear: the specified amount of estate duty that would otherwise be payable under the Act in respect of that share is remitted.
From a practitioner’s perspective, the key interpretive points are:
- Remission is limited to the stated amount: The Order remits $33,662.29—no more, no less.
- Remission is tied to a specific death event: It is “passing on the death of Liauw Lih Sien, Sandy” on 19 December 1997.
- Remission is tied to specified estates/shares: The Order identifies the estates of other deceased persons whose “share” is relevant to the duty.
- Remission is statutory relief: It is granted by an Order made under the Estate Duty Act’s remission power, rather than by administrative discretion alone.
The Order concludes with the making clause (“Made this 5th day of February 2001”) and the signature of the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Finance. This confirms the instrument’s formal validity and that it was issued by the competent authority under the enabling provision.
How Is This Legislation Structured?
This Order is extremely short and consists of a conventional structure for subsidiary remission instruments:
- Enacting formula: States that it is made under the powers conferred by section 50 of the Estate Duty Act.
- Section 1 (Citation): Provides the short title.
- Section 2 (Remission of estate duty): Sets out the remission amount and the specific duty context.
There are no schedules, definitions, or procedural provisions in the extract. The legal work is done entirely by Section 2, which is drafted to be self-contained and outcome-focused: it identifies the amount and the duty basis to be remitted.
Who Does This Legislation Apply To?
By its terms, the Order applies to the estate duty liability that is “payable under the Act” on the relevant share passing on the death of Liauw Lih Sien, Sandy on 19 December 1997. It is therefore directed at the tax liability arising from that death event, rather than at a class of taxpayers defined by general criteria.
In substance, the remission would benefit the relevant estate(s) and persons responsible for settling estate duty for the specified share. Because the Order references multiple estates/deceased persons (Liauw Ali Gunawan @ Ali Gunawan @ Liauw Swe Goan; Yap Sow Leng; and Liauw Lih Ting, Sindy), it likely addresses a particular chain of beneficial interests or property entitlements that resulted in estate duty being assessed on a “share” connected to those estates. However, the Order itself does not specify beneficiaries or administrators; it remits the duty amount payable under the Act in the identified context.
Why Is This Legislation Important?
Although the Order is narrow, it is important for practitioners because remission orders are often the decisive document in estate administration where tax liabilities have been assessed and paid (or are pending payment). If an estate duty assessment includes the amount remitted by this Order, the remission provides a clear legal basis to seek adjustment, refund (where applicable), or clearance of the outstanding balance.
From an enforcement and compliance perspective, the Order illustrates that the Estate Duty Act contains a mechanism for relief through the Minister’s power under section 50. This is significant because it confirms that remission is not merely discretionary goodwill; it is a legally authorised outcome that can be relied upon in dealings with the tax authority and in estate accounting.
For dispute resolution, the Order can also be relevant. If an estate duty liability was contested on grounds that ultimately led to remission, the Order’s precise drafting can help determine the scope of relief. Lawyers should therefore treat the remission amount and the specific duty basis as controlling. Any attempt to extend remission beyond the stated $33,662.29 would likely fail because remission is statutory and must be interpreted according to its terms.
Finally, the Order’s specificity regarding the death date (19 December 1997) and the estates/shares involved is a practical reminder for practitioners: when preparing submissions or advising on tax consequences, always align the factual narrative (death dates, property interests, and assessment basis) with the exact language of the remission instrument.
Related Legislation
- Estate Duty Act (Cap. 96) — in particular, section 50 (the enabling provision for remission orders)
Source Documents
This article provides an overview of the Estate Duty (Liauw Lih Sien, Sandy, 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.