Statute Details
- Title: Fees (Adjudication of Stamp Duty) (Remission) Order
- Act Code: FeA1920-OR36
- Type: Subsidiary Legislation (SL)
- Authorising Act: Fees Act (Cap. 106), s 9
- Commencement: Not stated in the extract; the Order is shown in the revised edition as 1st April 1990
- Current Version Status: Current version as at 27 Mar 2026 (per the platform display)
- Key Provisions: s 1 (Citation); s 2 (Remission of adjudication fee for specified HDB instruments)
- Related Legislation: Stamp Duties Act (Cap. 312); Fees Act (Cap. 106)
What Is This Legislation About?
The Fees (Adjudication of Stamp Duty) (Remission) Order is a narrow, targeted remission instrument. In plain terms, it deals with a specific fee that may be payable when stamp duty is “adjudicated” (that is, assessed/processed through the stamp duty adjudication mechanism) under the Stamp Duties Act. The Order provides that, in a particular scenario involving Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats, an adjudication fee can be remitted (i.e., cancelled or waived).
The Order is best understood as part of a wider policy approach to stamp duty relief for certain HDB-related transactions. It does not create a general stamp duty exemption. Instead, it addresses a secondary cost: the adjudication fee payable under section 37(1) of the Stamp Duties Act for instruments relating to the transfer of an HDB flat. The remission is triggered only where the stamp duty “in excess of $10” on the instrument has already been remitted under an earlier remission order dated 19 April 1990.
Accordingly, the practical effect is to prevent duplication of relief: if the stamp duty itself has been remitted under the earlier order, the adjudication fee associated with that instrument is also remitted. This reduces the overall financial burden on qualifying HDB flat transfer transactions.
What Are the Key Provisions?
Section 1 (Citation) is straightforward. It provides the short title by which the Order may be cited. For practitioners, this matters mainly for accurate legal referencing in submissions, correspondence, and filings.
Section 2 (Remission of adjudication fee payable under Stamp Duties Act) is the operative provision and the core of the Order. It states that the adjudication fee payable under section 37(1) of the Stamp Duties Act is to be remitted in respect of “any instrument relating to the transfer of any Housing and Development Board flat” where a specific condition is met.
The condition is twofold and is expressed through a chain of remissions:
- First: the instrument must relate to the transfer of an HDB flat.
- Second: the stamp duty “in excess of $10” on that instrument must have been remitted pursuant to an earlier Order dated 19th April 1990 made under section 75 of the Stamp Duties Act (as indicated in the extract, with a Gazette reference G.N. No. S 173/90).
In other words, the remission of the adjudication fee is not automatic for all HDB transfers. It is contingent on the stamp duty relief being granted under the earlier remission order. This structure is significant: it ensures that the adjudication fee remission tracks the scope of the stamp duty remission already granted under the earlier instrument.
What is being remitted? The Order remits the “adjudication fee payable under section 37(1) of the Stamp Duties Act (Cap. 312).” Section 37(1) (as referenced) is the statutory basis for the adjudication fee. While the extract does not reproduce section 37(1), the legal effect is clear: the fee is payable in connection with adjudication of stamp duty, and this Order removes that fee for qualifying HDB transfer instruments where the stamp duty relief condition is satisfied.
What is the threshold “in excess of $10”? The language “stamp duty in excess of $10” indicates that the remission applies only to the portion of stamp duty above a nominal baseline of $10. This suggests that the earlier 19 April 1990 Order likely left $10 payable while remitting the remainder. The present Order then mirrors that approach by remitting the adjudication fee only when that “excess” remission has occurred.
Practical implication: If an HDB transfer instrument has been processed and stamp duty has been remitted (beyond $10) under the earlier 19 April 1990 remission order, the adjudication fee should also be remitted under this Order. Conversely, if stamp duty relief was not granted (or was granted differently), the adjudication fee remission may not apply.
How Is This Legislation Structured?
This subsidiary legislation is extremely short and consists of:
- Section 1: Citation provision.
- Section 2: Substantive remission provision for adjudication fees in relation to HDB flat transfer instruments, subject to the condition that stamp duty in excess of $10 has been remitted under the earlier 19 April 1990 Order made under section 75 of the Stamp Duties Act.
There are no additional parts, schedules, or procedural provisions in the extract. The Order operates as a targeted legal mechanism to align the remission of an adjudication fee with the remission of stamp duty under a specified earlier instrument.
Who Does This Legislation Apply To?
The Order applies to transactions involving instruments relating to the transfer of any Housing and Development Board flat. In practice, this will typically concern parties to HDB flat transfers and the professionals handling the transaction (e.g., conveyancing practitioners) who may need to determine whether an adjudication fee is payable and whether it should be remitted.
However, the remission is not universal for all HDB transfers. It applies only where the stamp duty on the instrument has been remitted “in excess of $10” pursuant to the earlier 19 April 1990 Order made under section 75 of the Stamp Duties Act. Therefore, the relevant “applicability” question for a practitioner is not only whether the instrument is an HDB transfer, but also whether the earlier stamp duty remission has been granted in the manner described.
Why Is This Legislation Important?
Although the Order is brief, it has real cost implications. Stamp duty and related fees can be significant in property transactions. By remitting the adjudication fee in the specified circumstances, the Order reduces transaction costs for qualifying HDB flat transfers. For legal practitioners, this matters for advising clients accurately on total costs and for ensuring that fees are not incorrectly charged or withheld.
From an enforcement and compliance perspective, the Order’s conditional structure means that practitioners must verify the factual and legal basis for the stamp duty remission. The remission of the adjudication fee is linked to the earlier remission order dated 19 April 1990. This linkage is important because it prevents overbroad claims for fee remission and ensures that the remission is confined to the intended policy scope.
In addition, the Order illustrates how Singapore’s stamp duty framework can involve multiple layers of relief: one instrument remits stamp duty under the Stamp Duties Act, and another instrument remits a related fee under the Fees Act framework. For practitioners, this is a useful example of how to read remission instruments together—particularly where one remission is expressly conditioned on another.
Finally, because the Order is a subsidiary legislation made under the Fees Act (Cap. 106, s 9), it is part of the broader administrative and fee-setting architecture. Understanding its scope helps practitioners interpret which fees are governed by which statutory instruments and how remissions operate across that boundary.
Related Legislation
- Stamp Duties Act (Cap. 312) — including section 37(1) (adjudication fee) and section 75 (power to make remission orders)
- Fees Act (Cap. 106) — including section 9 (authorising the making of this remission order)
- Fees (Adjudication of Stamp Duty) (Remission) Order — G.N. No. S 173/90 referenced in the extract (19 April 1990 remission order made under section 75 of the Stamp Duties Act)
Source Documents
This article provides an overview of the Fees (Adjudication of Stamp Duty) (Remission) Order for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the official text for authoritative provisions.