Statute Details
- Title: Estate Duty (Xu Chue Fern, Deceased) (Remission) Order 2001
- Act Code: EDA1929-S39-2001
- Legislation Type: Subsidiary legislation (SL)
- Authorising Act: Estate Duty Act (Chapter 96)
- Authorising Provision: Section 50 of the Estate Duty Act
- Enacting Date: 26 December 2000
- Commencement / Citation Date: Published as SL 39/2001 (dated 23 January 2001 in the legislation timeline)
- Status: Current version as at 27 March 2026
- Key Provisions: Section 1 (Citation); Section 2 (Remission of estate duty)
What Is This Legislation About?
The Estate Duty (Xu Chue Fern, Deceased) (Remission) Order 2001 is a targeted remission order made under the Estate Duty Act (Cap. 96). In plain terms, it provides relief from estate duty that would otherwise be payable under the Act, but only in respect of a specific estate matter connected to the death of Xu Chue Fern on 19 December 1997.
Estate duty is a tax imposed on the transfer of property on death. While the Estate Duty Act sets out the general charging and assessment framework, remission orders are a mechanism for the Government to grant relief in particular circumstances. This Order is not a general reform of the estate duty regime; it is a narrow administrative/legal instrument that remits a defined sum of estate duty for identified shares in the estates of two deceased persons.
Practically, the Order matters because it changes the final amount payable under the Estate Duty Act for the relevant estate duty computation. For practitioners, the key value of such an order is that it can directly affect the amount due, the closing of accounts, and the handling of any outstanding payment, interest, or compliance steps tied to the original assessment.
What Are the Key Provisions?
Section 1 (Citation) is straightforward. It provides the short title by which the Order may be cited: Estate Duty (Xu Chue Fern, Deceased) (Remission) Order 2001. This is standard drafting and is mainly relevant for legal referencing and procedural use.
Section 2 (Remission of estate duty) is the operative provision. It states that a specific sum—$15,708.08—payable under the Estate Duty Act is hereby remitted. The remission is tied to “the share in the Estate of Oey Siok Lian, Deceased, and the Estate of Koh Peng Yam, Deceased,” passing on the death of Xu Chue Fern on 19th December 1997.
Several practical points flow from the wording of Section 2:
- It remits a defined amount: The remission is not a percentage or a recalculation instruction; it is a fixed sum of $15,708.08.
- It is linked to particular property interests: The remission applies to a “share” in the estates of Oey Siok Lian and Koh Peng Yam. This indicates that the original estate duty computation involved those estates and that only the relevant share (not necessarily the entire estate duty liability) is relieved.
- It is connected to a specific death event: The passing of the relevant share is “on the death of Xu Chue Fern” on 19 December 1997. This anchors the remission to the estate duty event date and helps avoid ambiguity about which assessment period or chargeable event is affected.
- It is “payable under the Act”: The remission is of an amount that was already determined as payable under the Estate Duty Act. This suggests the remission is intended to adjust the final payable figure rather than to alter the underlying legal basis of the charge.
Authority and legal effect: The Order is made “in exercise of the powers conferred by section 50 of the Estate Duty Act.” Section 50 is therefore the statutory gateway allowing the Minister for Finance to remit estate duty in appropriate cases. Once the remission order is made, the remitted amount is no longer payable (subject to the usual administrative steps for implementing remission in the tax account). For practitioners, the legal effect is that the taxpayer/estate should treat the remitted sum as extinguished from the amount due.
Making and signature: The Order was made on 26 December 2000 by the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Singapore (LIM SIONG GUAN). The signature and making date are relevant for establishing the formal validity of the remission and for aligning with the timeline of publication as SL 39/2001.
How Is This Legislation Structured?
This Order is extremely concise and consists of:
- Section 1: Citation (short title).
- Section 2: Remission of estate duty (the operative relief).
There are no schedules, definitions, or procedural provisions in the extract provided. The structure reflects the nature of remission orders: they typically identify the relevant estate duty liability and specify the amount remitted, without re-stating the broader framework of the Estate Duty Act.
Who Does This Legislation Apply To?
The Order applies to the estate duty liability arising from the death of Xu Chue Fern on 19 December 1997. It remits estate duty payable under the Estate Duty Act in respect of a share in the estates of Oey Siok Lian and Koh Peng Yam that passed on Xu Chue Fern’s death.
In practical terms, the “who” is not framed as a general class of taxpayers (e.g., executors or beneficiaries). Instead, it is framed by the specific estates and the specific chargeable event. Therefore, the beneficiaries/executors/administrators responsible for settling the estate duty account for Xu Chue Fern’s estate should be the primary parties who benefit from the remission, to the extent the remitted sum was included in the amount previously assessed as payable.
Why Is This Legislation Important?
Although the Order is narrow, it can be highly significant for estate administration. Estate duty computations can be complex, involving identification of property interests, valuation, and determination of what “passes” on death. A remission order like this one provides a direct financial adjustment: $15,708.08 is removed from the payable estate duty amount for the specified share interests.
From a practitioner’s perspective, the importance lies in:
- Finality and settlement: Remission can affect whether an estate duty account is fully settled or still outstanding. If the remitted amount was previously paid or demanded, the estate may need to consider administrative reconciliation (e.g., whether refund procedures apply, or whether the remission is applied as a credit against amounts due).
- Compliance and reporting: Executors and solicitors often need to report tax positions accurately in estate accounts and to justify figures to beneficiaries. A remission order is a legal basis to correct or update those figures.
- Audit trail: Tax authorities and auditors may require documentary evidence of why a liability was reduced. The Order provides that documentary basis.
- Legal certainty: Because the remission is enacted by subsidiary legislation under a specific statutory power (section 50 of the Estate Duty Act), it carries formal legal authority rather than being mere administrative discretion.
Finally, the Order illustrates how Singapore’s estate duty system can be adjusted through ministerial remission powers. While the Estate Duty Act sets the general rules, remission orders provide a structured way to grant relief in particular circumstances—often where fairness, correction of an assessment, or other policy considerations warrant it.
Related Legislation
- Estate Duty Act (Chapter 96) — in particular, section 50 (power to remit estate duty)
- Estate Duty Act timeline / legislation history — for identifying the correct version and amendments affecting remission powers and estate duty assessments
Source Documents
This article provides an overview of the Estate Duty (Xu Chue Fern, 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.