Cheok Doris v Commissioner of Stamp Duties
Court | Court of Appeal (Singapore) |
Judge | Chan Sek Keong CJ |
Judgment Date | 11 August 2010 |
Neutral Citation | [2010] SGCA 28 |
Citation | [2010] SGCA 28 |
Defendant Counsel | Foo Hui Min and Jimmy Oei (Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore) |
Published date | 16 August 2010 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Gan Hiang Chye (Rajah & Tann LLP) |
Hearing Date | 07 July 2010 |
Docket Number | Civil Appeal No 18 of 2010 |
Date | 11 August 2010 |
Subject Matter | Stamp Duties,Revenue Law |
This is an appeal against the decision of a High Court Judge (“the Judge”) dismissing the appeal of the appellant (“the Appellant”) against the decision of the Commissioner of Stamp Duties (“the Respondent”) that the Appellant was not entitled to a refund of stamp duty of $174,600 paid under s 22 of the Stamp Duties Act (Cap 312, 2006 Rev Ed) (“the SDA”) in connection with an aborted property transaction (see
The proceedings in the High Court were brought in the form of a case stated dated 13 May 2009 (“the Case Stated”) under s 40(1) of the SDA. Section 40(1)(
The dispute between the Appellant and the Respondent on this issue arose in the following circumstances as set out in the Case Stated:
After the S&P Agreement was rescinded, the Respondent assessed it to be chargeable for ad valorem stamp duty under s 22(1) of the SDA and assessed the duty at $174,600. The Purchasers served a notice of objection on the Respondent under s 39A(1) of the SDA, relying on the following three grounds to contend that stamp duty was not payable:
The Respondent rejected the above arguments and affirmed his assessment on 10 September 2008 under s 39A(5) of the SDA. In his s 39A(5) notice, the Respondent stated:
We are of the view that the deficiency in net lettable area in the present case does not constitute substantial misdescription. The facts of Yeo Brothers Co (Pte) Ltd v Atlas Properties (Pte) Ltd [1988] 1 MLJ 150 are distinguishable from those of the present case: the former involved the sale and purchase of a single unit in which there was a pure misdescription of the gross floor area (177.07 sq. m instead of 158 sq. m), whereas the latter involved the sale and purchase of an entire development on an en-bloc basis for which your client had erroneously believed that the gross strata area is the same as the net lettable area.
We do not consider such a misunderstanding to amount to substantial misdescription of the said properties. In fact, according to the valuation report by Allied Appraisal Consultants [P]te Ltd which you have provided on the said properties, the high ceilings of the family lounges have to be included in the computation of the strata areas to reflect the true value of the properties. As there is no substantial misdescription in the present case amounting to a lack of good title, a refund of any stamp duty paid cannot be made under section 22(6)(a).
The Appellant paid the assessed stamp duty and required the Respondent to state a case to the High Court to determine issues stated therein. The Case Stated contained the material facts set out at
The questions for the opinion of the Court are:
The Judge dismissed the Appellant’s appeal as set out in the Case Stated in a short judgment, for the reasons set out in the following paragraphs:
It can be seen from these passages that the Judge did not answer the Questions stated for the opinion of the court in accordance with s 40(3) of the SDA. He dismissed the Appellant’s appeal on the ground that the Appellant had failed to discharge the burden of proof on two issues of fact,
Before us, the Appellant contended that the Judge was wrong to hold that the Appellant had not proved the facts and to dismiss her appeal based on the Case Stated on the following grounds:
With respect to Question (a) set out at
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Land Law
...were reserved pending the outcome of the stay order. Strata title Meaning of ‘title’ 19.47 In Cheok Doris v Commissioner of Stamp Duties [2010] 4 SLR 397 (‘Cheok Doris’), the purchasers, namely, the appellant and her husband, had alleged that the vendor“s agent had represented to them that ......
-
Revenue and Tax Law
...were two cases on stamp duties in 2010. Refund of stamp duties in aborted transaction 22.71 Cheok Doris v Commissioner of Stamp Duties [2010] 4 SLR 397 (‘Cheok Doris’) concerned the taxpayer“s claim for refund of stamp duties because the purchase of a property was aborted. Facts 22.72 The t......
-
Civil Procedure
...were before the court. Case stated 8.21 The nature of a case stated was discussed in Cheok Doris v Commissioner of Stamp Duties [2010] 4 SLR 397 (‘Cheok Doris’). The Court of Appeal held (Cheok Doris at [14]) that the only purpose of the case stated was to facilitate the court to answer the......