Statute Details
- Title: Estate Duty (Xu Chue Fern, Deceased) (Remission) Order 2001
- Act Code: EDA1929-S39-2001
- Type: Subsidiary Legislation (SL)
- Authorising Act: Estate Duty Act (Chapter 96)
- Authorising Provision: Section 50 of the Estate Duty Act
- Legislation Number: S 39/2001
- Citation: Estate Duty (Xu Chue Fern, Deceased) (Remission) Order 2001
- Date Made: 26 December 2000
- Date of Publication/SL Date: 23 January 2001
- Status: Current version (as at 27 March 2026)
- Key Provisions (from extract): 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 reduces or cancels a specific amount of estate duty that would otherwise be payable in relation to the estate of a particular deceased person, namely Xu Chue Fern, who died 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 framework for assessing and collecting estate duty, the remission order mechanism allows the Minister for Finance to grant relief in defined circumstances. This order is not a general tax reform; it is an administrative relief instrument that applies to a particular estate and a particular sum.
Accordingly, the practical scope of this legislation is narrow: it remits a specified sum of $15,708.08 payable under the Estate Duty Act on shares in the estates of two other deceased persons—Oey Siok Lian and Koh Peng Yam—passing on the death of Xu Chue Fern. The order therefore sits at the intersection of estate duty assessment and the Minister’s power to grant remission in appropriate cases.
What Are the Key Provisions?
Section 1 (Citation) provides the short title of the order. This is a standard provision used to identify the instrument in legal documents, correspondence, and court or tribunal proceedings. For practitioners, the citation is important when referencing the remission in submissions to the relevant tax authority or in advising clients on the status of their estate duty liabilities.
Section 2 (Remission of estate duty) is the substantive operative provision. It states that “the sum of $15,708.08 payable under the Act” on a particular share is hereby remitted. The remission is linked to the share in the estates of Oey Siok Lian, Deceased and Koh Peng Yam, Deceased, which is described as passing on the death of Xu Chue Fern on 19 December 1997.
In practical terms, this means that if estate duty had been assessed and quantified at $15,708.08 for that particular passing of the share, the Minister’s order cancels that amount. The wording “payable under the Act” indicates that the remission relates to an amount that falls within the scope of the Estate Duty Act’s charge and assessment regime—i.e., it is not a separate payment or penalty, but a remission of estate duty that would otherwise be due.
Legislative authority and making: The order is made “in exercise of the powers conferred by section 50 of the Estate Duty Act.” Section 50 is therefore the legal basis for the Minister’s discretion to remit estate duty. The order also records the date it was made (26 December 2000) and the signatory (the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Finance). For lawyers, this is relevant when considering validity, delegation, and whether the remission was properly authorised.
Amount and identification of the relevant property: The order is highly specific. It does not remit estate duty generally or for the entire estate of Xu Chue Fern. Instead, it remits a defined sum tied to a defined “share” and defined estates (Oey Siok Lian and Koh Peng Yam). This specificity is critical for advising clients: the remission’s benefit is limited to the described duty amount and the described passing of the share.
How Is This Legislation Structured?
This remission order is structured in a simple, two-section format typical of many remission instruments. It contains:
(a) Section 1: the citation provision (how the order is referred to); and
(b) Section 2: the operative remission provision, identifying the exact sum remitted and the estates/property context to which the remission applies.
There are no additional parts, schedules, or complex procedural provisions in the extract provided. The order’s structure reflects its function: to record a ministerial decision granting a defined remission, rather than to establish a new administrative process.
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. More precisely, it applies to the portion of estate duty “payable under the Act” that relates to a share in the estates of Oey Siok Lian and Koh Peng Yam, as that share is described as passing on Xu Chue Fern’s death.
In terms of persons affected, the remission would typically benefit the estate of Xu Chue Fern and/or the persons liable for payment of the assessed estate duty amount—often executors, administrators, or beneficiaries depending on how the estate duty was assessed and who bore the liability. However, because the remission is expressed as a remission of a specific sum, the practical beneficiary is the party who would otherwise have had to pay the $15,708.08 assessed duty for the specified passing of the share.
Importantly, the order does not appear to apply broadly to all estate duty liabilities of Xu Chue Fern. It is limited to the identified sum and the identified share context. Lawyers should therefore treat it as a partial remission rather than a full discharge of estate duty.
Why Is This Legislation Important?
Although the order is short, it can be highly significant in estate administration. Estate duty can be a material cost to estates, and any remission reduces the financial burden on the estate and may affect distributions to beneficiaries. For practitioners, the key value of this order lies in confirming that a specific assessed amount—$15,708.08—should not be collected (or should be treated as cancelled) because it has been remitted by ministerial order.
From an enforcement and compliance perspective, remission orders also help clarify the finality of tax liabilities. If estate duty has already been assessed, practitioners need to know whether the liability remains payable in full or whether part of it has been extinguished by remission. This order provides a clear legal basis to adjust accounts, respond to tax demands, and support applications or correspondence regarding settlement of estate duty.
Finally, the order illustrates how the Estate Duty Act’s remission power operates in practice. Section 50 empowers the Minister for Finance to grant relief in defined cases. For lawyers advising on estate duty matters, this demonstrates that relief may be available even after assessment, but only where the statutory remission power is properly invoked and the remission instrument clearly specifies the amount and circumstances.
Related Legislation
- Estate Duty Act (Chapter 96) — in particular, section 50 (power to remit estate duty)
- Estate Duty Act timeline / legislation timeline — for confirming the correct version and any amendments relevant to remission powers
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.