Statute Details
- Title: Estate Duty (Visvanathapuram Mariadoss Jagadisa Raju, Deceased) (Remission) Order 1997
- Act Code: EDA1929-S138-1997
- Type: Subsidiary Legislation (SL)
- Authorising Act: Estate Duty Act (Cap. 96)
- Authorising Provision: Section 50 of the Estate Duty Act
- Enacting Formula: Made by the Minister for Finance
- Citation: “Estate Duty (Visvanathapuram Mariadoss Jagadisa Raju, Deceased) (Remission) Order 1997”
- Key Provisions: Section 1 (Citation); Section 2 (Remission of estate duty)
- Remission Amount: Estate duty of $39,276.01
- Property Reference: No. 8 Race Course Road, Singapore
- Deceased: Visvanathapuram Mariadoss Jagadisa Raju
- Date of Death: 12 September 1996
- Order Date / Making Date: 24 March 1997
- Maker: NGIAM TONG DOW, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Finance
- Commencement Date: Not stated in the extract (order is made on 24 March 1997; cited as SL 138/1997)
- Legislative Instrument Number: SL 138/1997
What Is This Legislation About?
The Estate Duty (Visvanathapuram Mariadoss Jagadisa Raju, Deceased) (Remission) Order 1997 is a narrow, case-specific remission order made under the Estate Duty Act (Cap. 96). In plain terms, it authorises the remission (i.e., waiver) of a specified amount of estate duty that would otherwise be payable in respect of a particular deceased person’s estate.
Unlike a general amendment to the estate duty regime, this Order does not redesign the law on how estate duty is calculated. Instead, it targets a specific liability: the estate duty of $39,276.01 payable under the Act on the “balance of the Collector’s Award” relating to a particular property at No. 8 Race Course Road, Singapore, passing on the death of Visvanathapuram Mariadoss Jagadisa Raju on 12 September 1996.
For practitioners, the Order is best understood as an administrative/legal relief instrument. It operates within the statutory framework of the Estate Duty Act, using the Minister for Finance’s power to grant remission in appropriate circumstances. The practical effect is to reduce the estate’s tax burden by the exact amount stated, provided the liability falls within the described factual matrix.
What Are the Key Provisions?
Section 1 (Citation) provides the formal title by which the Order may be cited. While this is standard drafting, it matters for legal referencing in correspondence, submissions, and court/tribunal filings. A practitioner typically cites the remission order when seeking confirmation from the Comptroller of Estate Duty (or the relevant authority) that the remission applies to the estate’s assessed liability.
Section 2 (Remission of estate duty) is the operative provision. It states that the estate duty of $39,276.01 payable under the Estate Duty Act on the balance of the Collector’s Award in respect of the property at No. 8 Race Course Road, Singapore is remitted. The remission is expressly tied to the estate of Visvanathapuram Mariadoss Jagadisa Raju, whose death occurred on 12 September 1996.
The phrase “balance of the Collector’s Award” is legally significant. It indicates that the estate duty in question is linked to a valuation or compensation framework involving a “Collector’s Award” (a term commonly associated with land acquisition and compensation determinations). The Order does not remit estate duty on the entire award or on all components of the estate; it remits estate duty on the balance of that award—suggesting that some portion may already have been accounted for, paid, or otherwise settled.
Section 2 also uses precise factual descriptors: the property address, the deceased’s identity, and the date of death. This precision is typical of remission orders because the remission power is exercised in a targeted manner. As a result, the remission should not be assumed to apply to other properties, other estates, or other valuation components unless the facts align exactly with the Order’s terms.
Finally, the Order includes the making clause (“Made this 24th day of March 1997”) and identifies the maker as the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Finance. This confirms the instrument’s validity as a subsidiary legislative act made pursuant to the enabling power in section 50 of the Estate Duty Act.
How Is This Legislation Structured?
This remission Order is extremely short and consists of only two substantive sections:
(1) Section 1: Citation.
(2) Section 2: Remission of estate duty (the operative relief provision).
There are no parts, schedules, or additional procedural provisions in the extract. The structure reflects the Order’s purpose: to grant a specific remission without altering the general estate duty framework. In practice, the Order functions as a legal “overlay” on the existing assessment under the Estate Duty Act, specifying the amount and the circumstances under which the liability is remitted.
Who Does This Legislation Apply To?
The Order applies to the estate of Visvanathapuram Mariadoss Jagadisa Raju (deceased), specifically in relation to the estate duty payable under the Estate Duty Act on the balance of the Collector’s Award concerning the property at No. 8 Race Course Road, Singapore. It is therefore not a general rule for all taxpayers; it is a targeted remission for a particular deceased person and a particular property/valuation component.
Practically, the beneficiaries, executors, administrators, and estate representatives who are dealing with the estate duty assessment for that estate would be the parties most likely to rely on the Order. However, the remission is not discretionary at the level of the estate; it is granted by the Minister for Finance through the statutory power in section 50. Accordingly, once the estate duty liability falls within the Order’s described scope, the remission should be applied to the specified amount.
Why Is This Legislation Important?
Although the Order is brief, it is important because it directly affects the quantum of estate duty payable for a specific estate. For practitioners, even a single remission order can materially change the estate’s settlement position—particularly where estate duty is a gating factor for distribution, finalisation of accounts, or closure of probate/administration matters.
From an enforcement and compliance perspective, the Order demonstrates how the Estate Duty Act’s remission power can be exercised to provide relief in defined circumstances. Section 50 (the enabling provision) allows the Minister for Finance to remit estate duty. This Order is an example of that power being used to address a particular assessed liability—here, estate duty on the balance of a Collector’s Award tied to a specific property.
Practically, lawyers should treat such remission orders as authoritative instruments that must be reflected in the estate’s duty computation and settlement documentation. In dealing with estate duty matters, practitioners often need to reconcile: (i) the original assessment; (ii) any payments made; (iii) subsequent adjustments; and (iv) any remission or abatement. This Order provides a clear, legally enforceable basis for reducing the estate duty by $39,276.01 for the specified property and deceased.
Additionally, the specificity of the Order underscores a key drafting lesson: remission orders are typically not transferable. If a client’s case involves a different property, a different deceased, or a different component of the Collector’s Award, the remission may not apply. Therefore, careful factual matching is essential when advising whether a remission order can be relied upon.
Related Legislation
- Estate Duty Act (Cap. 96) — in particular, section 50 (power to remit estate duty)
- Estate Duty Act (general framework) — provisions governing assessment, payment, and collection of estate duty (as applicable to the Collector’s Award context)
Source Documents
This article provides an overview of the Estate Duty (Visvanathapuram Mariadoss Jagadisa Raju, Deceased) (Remission) Order 1997 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the official text for authoritative provisions.