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 (Chapter 96)
- Authorising Provision: Section 50 of the Estate Duty Act
- Legislative Instrument No.: S 57/2001 (SL 57/2001)
- Date Made: 5 February 2001
- Commencement Date: Not stated in the extract (orders of this type typically take effect upon making unless otherwise provided)
- Key Provisions: 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 (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 relieves a specific amount of estate duty that would otherwise be payable under the Estate Duty Act in relation to the estate of a named deceased person.
Estate duty is a tax historically imposed on the transfer of property on death. While the Estate Duty Act sets out the general charging and administrative framework, remission orders provide a mechanism for the Minister for Finance to reduce or waive estate duty in particular circumstances. This 2001 Order is an example of such a case-specific administrative relief instrument.
Importantly, this Order does not create a new tax regime or amend the substantive rules of estate duty. Instead, it applies to a defined set of estates and a defined sum, remitting the duty payable on specified shares passing on the death of Liauw Lih Sien, Sandy, on 19 December 1997.
What Are the Key Provisions?
Section 1 (Citation) is a standard provision confirming the name by which the Order may be cited. For practitioners, this is mainly relevant for accurate referencing in correspondence, submissions, and filings.
Section 2 (Remission of estate duty) is the operative provision. It states that a particular sum—$33,662.29—payable under the Estate Duty Act is remitted. The remission is linked to “the share in the Estate of” three named deceased persons/estates, namely: (i) the Estate of Liauw Ali Gunawan @ Ali Gunawan @ Liauw Swe Goan, (ii) the Estate of Yap Sow Leng, and (iii) the Estate of Liauw Lih Ting, Sindy. The remission applies to these shares “passing on the death of Liauw Lih Sien, Sandy on 19th December 1997”.
From a legal and practical standpoint, the structure of Section 2 indicates that the estate duty computation or assessment involved a chain of interests: the death of Liauw Lih Sien, Sandy triggered estate duty consequences, and within that framework, certain shares attributable to the estates of the three other named deceased persons were subject to duty. The Order then remits the assessed amount of $33,662.29 in respect of those shares.
Scope and precision are central to this instrument. The remission is not expressed as a general waiver for all estate duty liabilities arising from the 1997 death. Instead, it is confined to a specific sum and to the specified estates/shares. This means that, for any practitioner advising on the remaining estate duty position, the Order should be treated as a narrow relief measure: it remits what is stated, and it does not automatically imply remission of other amounts, other assets, or other periods not captured by the wording.
Making authority and ministerial discretion are also important. 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.” Section 50 is therefore the legal basis for remission. Practically, this signals that the remission is an administrative decision within the statutory discretion granted by Parliament, rather than a judicial determination. Accordingly, the Order should be read as the formal instrument through which that discretion is exercised.
How Is This Legislation Structured?
This Order is extremely concise and consists of:
(a) Enacting formula—identifies the Minister for Finance and the statutory power under section 50 of the Estate Duty Act.
(b) Section 1 (Citation)—sets out the short title.
(c) Section 2 (Remission of estate duty)—sets out the remission amount and the estates/shares to which it applies, tied to the death date of Liauw Lih Sien, Sandy (19 December 1997).
There are no schedules, definitions, or procedural provisions in the extract. The absence of additional machinery suggests that the remission is implemented directly by the Order itself, without requiring further steps described within the instrument.
Who Does This Legislation Apply To?
The Order applies to the estate duty payable under the Estate Duty Act on a particular “share in the Estate” of the named deceased persons/estates, where those shares are relevant to the passing on the death of Liauw Lih Sien, Sandy on 19 December 1997. In effect, the beneficiaries, personal representatives, or estate administrators dealing with the relevant estate duty assessment would be the practical parties affected by the remission.
Although the Order names individuals and estates, it does not read like a general class-based rule (e.g., “all estates meeting criteria X”). Instead, it is case-specific. For legal practitioners, this means the Order is most relevant when reviewing the estate duty assessment records for the 1997 death and confirming whether the assessed amount of $33,662.29 has been remitted.
Because the remission is tied to a defined sum and defined shares, it is also relevant to any dispute or reconciliation of estate duty liabilities: parties should verify whether other components of the estate duty assessment remain payable, and whether any interest, penalties, or additional charges (if applicable under the broader Estate Duty Act framework) are affected by the remission.
Why Is This Legislation Important?
Although the Order is short, it is legally significant because it demonstrates how the Estate Duty Act’s remission power operates in practice. For practitioners, remission orders are often the final step in resolving administrative or computational issues, correcting over-assessments, or granting relief where the statutory discretion is exercised.
From a compliance perspective, the Order provides certainty: it formally remits $33,662.29 payable under the Estate Duty Act on the specified shares passing on the death of Liauw Lih Sien, Sandy. This can materially affect estate administration, including the settlement of accounts, distribution planning, and the closure of tax-related matters with the relevant authorities.
From an enforcement and litigation perspective, the existence of a remission order can be decisive. If a party is seeking to recover or resist payment of estate duty amounts, the Order serves as authoritative evidence that the Minister for Finance has exercised the statutory remission power for the specified amount. Conversely, because the remission is narrow, parties should not assume that it covers other sums or other assets not expressly included in Section 2.
Finally, the Order is a reminder that estate duty administration is not purely mechanical. Even where the Estate Duty Act sets out the general rules, the remission regime allows for tailored outcomes. Practitioners advising on estate duty matters should therefore always check whether any remission orders exist for the relevant deceased person and assessment period, particularly where there are multiple estates, shares, or complex ownership structures.
Related Legislation
- Estate Duty Act (Chapter 96) — in particular, section 50 (power to remit estate duty)
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.