Statute Details
- Title: Estate Duty (Liauw Lih Ting, Sindy, Deceased) (Remission) Order 2001
- Act Code: EDA1929-S58-2001
- 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/notification, subject to the Gazette publication)
- Key Provisions: Section 1 (Citation); Section 2 (Remission of estate duty)
- Legislative Instrument No.: SL 58/2001
- Status: Current version as at 27 March 2026
What Is This Legislation About?
The Estate Duty (Liauw Lih Ting, Sindy, Deceased) (Remission) Order 2001 is a targeted remission order made under the Estate Duty Act (Cap. 96). In plain terms, it authorises the remission (i.e., forgiveness) of a specific sum of estate duty that would otherwise be payable under the Estate Duty Act in relation to a particular estate and a particular deceased person.
Estate duty is a tax imposed on the estate of a deceased person. While the Estate Duty Act sets out the general framework for assessment and payment, remission orders are used to grant relief in defined circumstances. This particular Order is not a broad policy change; it is a case-specific instrument that identifies the relevant deceased persons, the relevant estate duty liability, and the exact amount remitted.
Practically, the Order addresses a liability “payable under the Act” on a share in the estates of two deceased persons, where that share passes on the death of Liauw Lih Ting, Sindy on 19 December 1997. The remission is for a fixed sum of $12,450.00.
What Are the Key Provisions?
Section 1 (Citation) provides the short title of the instrument: “Estate Duty (Liauw Lih Ting, Sindy, Deceased) (Remission) Order 2001”. This is standard legislative drafting and is mainly relevant for referencing the Order in legal submissions, correspondence, or filings.
Section 2 (Remission of estate duty) is the operative provision. It states that “the sum of $12,450.00 payable under the Act on the share in the Estate of Liauw Ali Gunawan @ Ali Gunawan @ Liauw Swe Goan, Deceased, and Estate of Yap Sow Leng, Deceased, passing on the death of Liauw Lih Ting, Sindy on 19th December 1997 is hereby remitted.”
This wording contains several legally significant elements:
- Exact amount remitted: $12,450.00. Because the amount is specified, the remission is not discretionary or subject to later recalculation under the Order itself.
- Link to a “share” in two estates: The remission relates to a “share in the Estate” of two deceased persons—Liauw Ali Gunawan (with aliases) and Yap Sow Leng. The Order therefore appears to address estate duty consequences arising from the passing of that share.
- Trigger event: The share is described as “passing on the death of Liauw Lih Ting, Sindy on 19th December 1997.” This indicates that the estate duty liability being remitted is tied to the death of Liauw Lih Ting, Sindy, and the relevant property interest is traced to the earlier estates.
- Scope limited to what is “payable under the Act”: The remission applies to the amount that is payable under the Estate Duty Act. It does not, on its face, rewrite the assessment rules; it simply removes the payment obligation for the specified sum.
Enacting formula and authority are also important for practitioners. The Order is made “in exercise of the powers conferred by section 50 of the Estate Duty Act” by the Minister for Finance. Section 50 is therefore the statutory gateway that permits remission. In practice, when advising clients, counsel should verify that the factual and procedural background aligns with the remission power under section 50 (for example, that the remission is within the scope contemplated by that provision and that the remission is properly recorded and communicated to the relevant tax authority).
Made date and signatory: The instrument states it was “Made this 5th day of February 2001” and is signed by LIM SIONG GUAN, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Singapore. The signatory and making date may matter for determining the effective date of remission and for evidencing the instrument’s validity.
How Is This Legislation Structured?
This Order is extremely short and consists of:
- Section 1: Citation (how the Order is referred to).
- Section 2: Remission of estate duty (the substantive relief).
There are no schedules, definitions, or detailed procedural provisions in the extract. The structure reflects the nature of remission orders: they are typically drafted to identify the amount, the relevant estates, and the triggering death, rather than to set out a comprehensive administrative process.
Who Does This Legislation Apply To?
The Order applies to the estate duty liability “payable under the Act” in connection with the death of Liauw Lih Ting, Sindy on 19 December 1997. It remits a specific sum relating to a share in the estates of Liauw Ali Gunawan (including aliases “Ali Gunawan” and “Liauw Swe Goan”) and Yap Sow Leng.
In terms of persons affected, the remission would generally benefit the estate administration and/or the persons who would otherwise have borne the estate duty burden for that assessed amount. However, the Order itself is drafted to remit the duty amount rather than to confer rights directly on named beneficiaries. For legal practice, this means that the practical beneficiaries are usually identified by the estate duty assessment and the distribution of the estate, while the remission is evidenced by the Order and the tax authority’s records.
Why Is This Legislation Important?
Although the Order is narrow in scope, it can be highly significant in estate administration. Estate duty can be a substantial cost, and a remission of $12,450.00 may affect settlement of accounts, finalisation of estate administration, and the calculation of net distributable value.
From a practitioner’s perspective, the key importance lies in how remission orders interact with the Estate Duty Act. The Order does not replace the assessment framework; instead, it provides a targeted relief that must be reflected in the computation of amounts payable. If a client is disputing an amount, seeking to correct a payment, or preparing final estate accounts, the existence of a remission order can be decisive evidence that a portion of the duty should not have been demanded or should be treated as no longer payable.
Additionally, remission orders are often used to address particular circumstances—such as issues arising from property tracing, double counting concerns, or administrative outcomes—without requiring a general legislative amendment. Even when the underlying reason is not stated in the Order text, counsel should treat the instrument as authoritative and ensure that it is properly incorporated into the estate’s tax position.
Finally, because the Order is a subsidiary legislation instrument made under a specific statutory power (section 50 of the Estate Duty Act), it is legally binding in the sense that it remits the specified duty amount. Practitioners should therefore ensure that any correspondence with the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (or the relevant authority handling estate duty matters) references the Order and the precise amount and property description to avoid misunderstandings.
Related Legislation
- Estate Duty Act (Cap. 96) — in particular, section 50 (power to grant remission)
Source Documents
This article provides an overview of the Estate Duty (Liauw Lih Ting, Sindy, 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.