Statute Details
- Title: Income Tax (Exemption from section 19B(10A)) Order 2015
- Act Code: ITA1947-S479-2015
- Type: Subsidiary Legislation (SL)
- Enacting Authority: Minister for Finance
- Authorising Provision: Powers conferred by section 19B(10B) of the Income Tax Act (Chapter 134)
- Primary Subject: Exemption from section 19B(10A) of the Income Tax Act
- Citation: Income Tax (Exemption from section 19B(10A)) Order 2015
- Legislative Number: SL 479/2015
- Made On: 28 July 2015
- Commencement Date: Not stated in the extract (order is made on 28 July 2015; status indicates current version as at 27 Mar 2026)
- Status / Version: Current version as at 27 Mar 2026
- Key Beneficiary (named): Keysight Technologies Singapore (Holdings) Pte. Ltd.
- Related Party (named): Agilent Technologies Singapore (Holdings) Pte. Ltd.
What Is This Legislation About?
The Income Tax (Exemption from section 19B(10A)) Order 2015 is a targeted tax exemption order made under Singapore’s Income Tax Act. In practical terms, it relieves a specific company—Keysight Technologies Singapore (Holdings) Pte. Ltd.—from the operation of a particular restriction in section 19B(10A) of the Income Tax Act, but only for a defined set of facts.
Section 19B of the Income Tax Act generally deals with tax treatment of certain capital expenditure and related conditions, including situations involving intellectual property rights and intra-group or related-party arrangements. The 2015 Order does not rewrite the Income Tax Act. Instead, it uses the Minister’s statutory power to grant an exemption from one sub-section—section 19B(10A)—in a narrowly circumscribed scenario.
The Order is therefore best understood as a bespoke administrative-tax instrument: it applies only to the named taxpayer, only to capital expenditure incurred on a specified date, and only to intellectual property rights meeting a defined definition and provenance. It also incorporates conditions contained in a letter from the Economic Development Board (EDB), making compliance with those conditions central to the exemption’s validity.
What Are the Key Provisions?
1. Citation (Section 1)
Section 1 provides the short title: the Order may be cited as the Income Tax (Exemption from section 19B(10A)) Order 2015. While this appears procedural, citation provisions matter for practitioners because they confirm the exact instrument and facilitate cross-referencing in submissions, tax computations, and correspondence with the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS).
2. Exemption from section 19B(10A) (Section 2(1))
The core operative provision is section 2. Under section 2(1), Keysight Technologies Singapore (Holdings) Pte. Ltd. is exempt from section 19B(10A) of the Income Tax Act in respect of capital expenditure incurred by it on 1 August 2014. The capital expenditure must be for acquiring, for use in its trade or business, intellectual property rights from Agilent Technologies Singapore (Holdings) Pte. Ltd.
This is a classic “fact-specific” exemption. For legal and tax teams, the key is to ensure that the taxpayer’s claim aligns with each element:
- the taxpayer is the named company (Keysight);
- the expenditure is capital expenditure;
- it was incurred on 1 August 2014;
- it relates to acquiring intellectual property rights;
- the intellectual property rights are acquired for use in the taxpayer’s trade or business; and
- the seller/transferor is the named related party (Agilent Technologies Singapore (Holdings) Pte. Ltd.).
3. Conditions tied to an EDB letter (Section 2(2))
Section 2(2) makes the exemption conditional. The exemption in section 2(1) is “subject to the terms and conditions specified in the letter dated 31 March 2015 sent by the Economic Development Board and addressed to Keysight Technologies Singapore (Holdings) Pte. Ltd.”
From a practitioner’s perspective, this is one of the most important provisions in the Order. It means that even if the taxpayer’s transaction fits the factual description in section 2(1), the exemption may still fail if the taxpayer does not satisfy the EDB letter’s terms and conditions. Because the Order itself does not reproduce those terms, counsel should obtain and review the EDB letter and ensure that:
- the taxpayer is the addressee;
- the relevant conditions are met (and documented);
- any reporting, compliance, or timing requirements were satisfied; and
- there is no subsequent breach that could affect the exemption.
4. Definition of “intellectual property rights” (Section 2(3))
Section 2(3) defines “intellectual property rights” for the purposes of the exemption. The rights must be:
- created before 1 August 2014 by Agilent Technologies Singapore (Holdings) Pte. Ltd. (a related party of Keysight); and
- rights in respect of intellectual property that satisfy two additional conditions:
(a) any deduction has been allowed under section 14 or section 14D of the Act for any outgoing, expense or payment incurred for an activity which resulted in the creation of the intellectual property; and
(b) the proceeds from the sale, transfer or assignment of those intellectual property rights to Keysight are not chargeable to tax.
This definition is legally significant because it links the exemption to the tax history of the intellectual property. It ensures that the exemption applies only where the intellectual property has already been treated in a particular way under sections 14 or 14D (which relate to deductions for certain qualifying expenditures), and where the seller’s proceeds are not chargeable to tax. In other words, the Order is designed to address a specific tax outcome that would otherwise be affected by section 19B(10A), likely to prevent double benefits or to align with a policy framework for qualifying IP transactions.
How Is This Legislation Structured?
The Order is extremely concise and consists of:
(i) Section 1: the citation provision.
(ii) Section 2: the substantive exemption, with three sub-paragraphs:
- 2(1) grants the exemption for specified capital expenditure incurred on 1 August 2014 for acquiring specified IP rights from a specified related party;
- 2(2) makes the exemption conditional on terms in an EDB letter dated 31 March 2015;
- 2(3) defines the scope of “intellectual property rights” by reference to creation date, the related party, prior deductions under sections 14/14D, and the taxability of sale proceeds.
There are no additional parts, schedules, or procedural sections in the extract. The structure reflects the nature of subsidiary legislation orders: a narrow legal effect rather than a comprehensive regulatory scheme.
Who Does This Legislation Apply To?
The Order applies to Keysight Technologies Singapore (Holdings) Pte. Ltd. It is not a general exemption available to all taxpayers. The exemption is granted to a named entity and is limited to the specified transaction and expenditure described in section 2(1).
Although the Order references another company—Agilent Technologies Singapore (Holdings) Pte. Ltd.—Agilent is not the beneficiary of the exemption. Agilent’s role is relevant because the definition of qualifying intellectual property rights depends on the IP being created by Agilent before 1 August 2014 and on the tax treatment of deductions and sale proceeds connected to Agilent’s activities.
Why Is This Legislation Important?
For practitioners, the importance of this Order lies in its targeted relief and the way it interacts with the Income Tax Act’s broader framework. Section 19B(10A) likely imposes a restriction that could otherwise deny or limit deductions or tax benefits for certain capital expenditure on intellectual property—particularly where the transaction involves related parties or where the tax treatment of the IP’s creation and transfer has specific characteristics. This Order provides a controlled exception, ensuring that the intended tax outcome for the Keysight transaction is achieved.
Second, the Order highlights a common compliance risk in Singapore tax practice: conditions external to the tax statute. Because section 2(2) ties the exemption to an EDB letter dated 31 March 2015, the exemption’s availability depends not only on tax law interpretation but also on economic development programme conditions (or similar regulatory commitments). Counsel should treat the EDB letter as a critical document for diligence, audit readiness, and any dispute with IRAS.
Third, the definition of “intellectual property rights” in section 2(3) is a reminder that eligibility can hinge on historical tax facts—such as whether deductions were allowed under sections 14 or 14D for expenditures that resulted in creation of the IP, and whether proceeds from the transfer are not chargeable to tax. Practically, this requires careful document collection: prior tax assessments, deduction records, and transaction documentation demonstrating the tax status of proceeds.
Related Legislation
- Income Tax Act (Chapter 134) — in particular:
- Section 19B(10A) (the provision from which exemption is granted)
- Section 19B(10B) (the enabling provision empowering the Minister to make the Order)
- Sections 14 and 14D (referred to in the definition of qualifying intellectual property rights)
- Timeline / Legislation history (as referenced in the legislation portal for version control)
Source Documents
This article provides an overview of the Income Tax (Exemption from section 19B(10A)) Order 2015 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the official text for authoritative provisions.