ESTATE DUTY (AMENDMENT) BILL
Parliament of Singapore · 23 March 1978 · 4th Parliament
Official Report, 23 March 1978, Vol 37, Issue 16 · Open in the reader (summaries, search, filters)
Order for Second Reading read. 4.03 p.m.
The Minister for Finance (Mr Hon Sui Sen): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
For the domiciled deceased person, estate duty is imposed on his total assets in Singapore as well as on his movable assets elsewhere. In the case of a non-domiciled person, estate duty is levied on his movable and immovable properties situate in Singapore only.
The rates of estate duty existing before 1st April 1977 ranged between 5% and 60% for estates exceeding $50,000 in value. Estates below $50,000 in value were exempted from duty. Duty was also remitted at a declining rate of 10% of the duty payable for every $20,000 in excess of $50,000. The remission limit was $23,000.
In my 1977 annual Budget Statement, I announced that, to encourage home ownership and a more stable society comprising home owners, the rates of estate duty would be revised from 1st April 1977. The exemption limit would be raised from $50,000 to $100,000. The rate of remission would remain the same, i.e. at a declining rate of 10% of the duty payable for every $20,000 in excess of $100,000 in value of the estate. The remission limit would be increased to $280,000.
The Estate Duty (Amendment) Bill seeks to amend the Estate Duty Act accordingly. Clause 2 of the Amendment Bill levies the new rates of estate duty on the property of any person dying on or after 1st April 1977. Clause 3 sets out the remissions including those provided under the Estate Duty (Remission) Order, 1974. Clause 4 of the Bill exempts bequests to statutory institutions as specified in the Twelfth Schedule to the Act from estate duty.
In a corresponding Bill, which I am taking through the House today, the Statutes of the Republic of Singapore (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, I shall be seeking to delete the estate duty exemption provisions in the various Statutes. These are now more appropriately incorporated in the amendments made by the Bill to the Estate Duty Act.
Sir, I beg to move.
Question proposed.
Mr Hwang Soo Jin: Mr Speaker, Sir, clause 4 of the Bill exempts bequests to certain institutions from estate duty. On referring to the Twelfth Schedule, I see that at present only four institutions are in the privileged position of being able to receive bequests which are not subjected to estate duty. These four institutions are (1) University of Singapore, (2) Singapore Society of Accountants, (3) Board of Legal Education, and (4) The Law Society of Singapore.
Sir, while I can understand the justification for treating the University of Singapore in a special position, I do not really see any justification for giving this privilege to the legal and the accountancy professions. I would say that these two professions have done much better than any other profession over the last few years. They are in a very good financial position. I do not see why we should give them special treatment as such.
In the last few days we have heard so much about the need to pay a bit more attention to cultural activities. Why cannot we include in the list institutions such as the National Museum, the Science Council and various other statutory bodies? I am sure they deserve our support much more than those two professional bodies.
Mr Hon Sui Sen: Sir, I will take note of the observations of the Member. All I am doing here is just to change the law relating to these institutions and incorporate the present exemption given to them under those laws in an Act which is more appropriate, that is, relating to the estate duty, so that I am neither adding nor subtracting from the exemptions given. I have no doubt that in a further examination of bodies which are worthy of exemption and bodies which are not worthy of exemption, there could be changes and I will no doubt in the course of the next year or so give further attention to them.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.
The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Hon Sui Sen].
Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.
Source: Singapore Parliament Official Report (Hansard) for 23 March 1978. Republished on SGParliament.