Stamp Duties Act 1929

“55 Moonstone Lane (which has a gross floor area of 634.85m2), the appellant paid the buyer’s stamp duty of $140,000 to the respondent, the Commissioner of Stamp Duties (“the Commissioner”), under the Stamp Duties Act (Cap 312, 2006 Rev Ed) (“the Act”).”

“he money borrowed and the income produced. In that case, the taxpayer company desired to purchase a property owned by another company. In order to take advantage of a tax concession in the applicable Stamp Duties Act (Cap 312, 1985 Rev Ed), the taxpayer decided to acquire the property indirectly by purchasing the latte”

“Revenue Law] — [Stamp duties] — [Instruments liable to ad valorem duty; Revenue Law] — [Stamp Duties Act”

“lied on the fact that $261,600 in stamp duty (excluding late penalty fees) was paid in 2016 when the DOT was stamped. If the DOT merely declared a pre-existing trust, the stamp duty payable under the Stamp Duties Act (Cap 312, 2006 Rev Ed) would be only $10.”

“The applicant, Asia Development Pte Ltd, was obliged to pay what is known as an “additional buyer’s stamp duty” (“ABSD”) under the Stamp Duties Act (Cap 312, 2006 Rev Ed) (“the Act”) on a property known as 55 Moonstone Lane. The ABSD claimed in this case was a total of $564,120.00. The applicant applied for a remission”

“tion to the Minister for Finance (“the Minister”) for an extension of 15 months and 19 days. This request was expressly made invoking the Minister’s discretion under s 74(1) read with s 74(2B) of the Stamp Duties Act (Cap 312, 2006 Rev Ed) (“the SDA”). We reproduce these provisions for reference:”

“t be described as “unremarkable” (in contrast to the Court of Appeal’s characterisation of the Minister’s powers to reduce or remit duties and waive conditions under s 74(1) read with s 74(2B) of the Stamp Duties Act (Cap 312, 2006 Rev Ed) at [10] of Asia Development). Section 85(3)(b) of the LPA, in contrast to s 85(1”

“ity, this situation does not fall into any established categories that would render the Trust illegal in itself. In examining the question of statutory illegality, I turn to the relevant parts of the Stamp Duties Act 1929 (Cap 312, 2006 Rev Ed) (“SDA”). Section 4(1)(a) of the SDA read with Art 3(bf)(iii) of the First S”

“(a) The First and Second Tenancy Agreements, being unstamped, were inadmissible in evidence by virtue of s 52 of the Stamp Duties Act 1929 (2021 Rev Ed) (“Stamp Duties Act”).”

“s that depends on the purchase price of the property. The prevailing BSD rates (at the time of this judgment) applicable to the purchase of residential property are summarised in the following table (Stamp Duties Act 1929 (2021 Rev Ed) (“Stamp Duties Act”), First Schedule, Art 3(a)(iv)(A)):”

“At the first step, Goh JC held that the trust is not illegal in itself as the Stamp Duties Act 1929 (“Stamp Duties Act”) does not expressly or by necessary implication prohibit trusts created to avoid ABSD. At the second step, Goh JC held that the trust was not created for an illegal purpose as he”

“property in a 99:1 ratio impacts on the co-owners purchasing a second property in relation to ABSD, and how that potentially engages issues of tax avoidance, under-stamping and tax evasion under the Stamp Duties Act 1929 (2020 Rev Ed) (“SDA”).”

“ate response to disallow the counterclaim. In particular, the claimant argued that there had been contravention of the following provisions: (1) s 6 of the Civil Law Act 1909 (“CLA”); (2) s 52 of the Stamp Duties Act 1929 (“SDA”); and (3) the applicable HDB regulatory framework.”