CM CIS (M8 + M8A) – Collective Investment Schemes Set Two

Correct: In Singapore, CPF monies are specifically excluded from a person’s estate. This exclusion ensures that the funds can be distributed quickly to nominees without the delays of the probate process and protects the funds from the deceased’s creditors. Because they do not form part of the estate, they are not subject to the Intestate Succession Act, which only dictates the distribution of the ‘estate’ of a person who dies without a Will. Therefore, a valid CPF nomination remains the governing instruction for distribution regardless of the Intestate Succession Act’s rules.

Incorrect: The Intestate Succession Act does not supersede a CPF nomination because the Act only applies to assets that form part of the deceased’s estate; CPF monies are legally carved out of the estate. The Public Trustee only handles CPF distribution if there is no valid nomination, and even then, they distribute according to the Intestate Succession Act (or Muslim Law), but the funds still do not technically become part of the estate for probate. The concept of a ‘residuary estate’ does not include CPF monies unless the nomination specifically fails or is absent, and even then, the legal mechanism is distinct from the distribution of other probate assets.

Takeaway: CPF monies are excluded from the deceased’s estate and are distributed according to the CPF nomination, bypassing the Intestate Succession Act and the probate process.

Correct: In Singapore, the Income Tax Act imposes an aggregate cap of $80,000 on the total amount of personal income tax reliefs that an individual can claim in any Year of Assessment. For high-net-worth individuals (HNWIs) who often qualify for multiple reliefs (such as CPF, Earned Income, and various family-related reliefs), the $80,000 cap is frequently reached. If the cap is already met, an SRS contribution will not provide any further reduction in taxable income, making it tax-inefficient as the funds become subject to withdrawal restrictions and potential taxes later without the initial tax benefit.

Incorrect: Maximizing SRS contributions without considering the $80,000 cap is poor advice because it locks up liquidity without achieving the primary goal of tax deduction. Prioritizing SRS over Medisave contributions is often strategically unsound as Medisave contributions provide both tax relief and high risk-free interest rates within the CPF system. Suggesting a trust for estate duty is factually incorrect in the Singapore context, as estate duty was abolished for deaths occurring on or after 15 February 2008, and SRS accounts are individually held and cannot be transferred into a trust while the account is active.

Takeaway: For high-net-worth individuals in Singapore, SRS contributions must be calibrated against the $80,000 aggregate tax relief cap to avoid losing the tax-deduction benefit while still incurring withdrawal restrictions.

Correct: Under the tie-breaker rules found in most of Singapore’s DTAs (which generally follow the OECD Model Tax Convention), the first step to resolve dual residency is identifying where the individual has a permanent home. If a permanent home is available in both countries, the next criterion is the ‘center of vital interests,’ which examines the individual’s closer personal and economic ties, such as family, social relations, and place of business.

Incorrect: The 183-day rule is a common domestic test for residency in Singapore, but in a DTA tie-breaker scenario, qualitative factors like a permanent home and center of vital interests take precedence over a simple day count. The source of income is used to determine taxing rights on specific types of income but is not the primary factor in the residency tie-breaker hierarchy. A Certificate of Residence (COR) is a document used to claim treaty benefits, but it does not automatically nullify another country’s domestic residency claims; rather, the DTA tie-breaker rules are used to resolve such conflicts.

Takeaway: Singapore’s DTAs resolve dual residency through a hierarchical tie-breaker process starting with the location of a permanent home and the individual’s center of vital interests.

Correct: In Singapore, Buyer’s Stamp Duty (BSD) is a progressive tax. Following the 2023 Budget changes, the top marginal rate for residential properties was increased to 5% for the portion of the value between $1.5 million and $3 million, and 6% for the portion exceeding $3 million. For non-residential properties, the top marginal rate is 5% for the portion of the value exceeding $1.5 million.

Incorrect: The suggestion that both asset classes share a 4% cap is outdated, as rates were increased in recent years. The claim that non-residential BSD is a flat 5% is incorrect because it follows a tiered structure (1%, 2%, 3%, 4%, 5%). Furthermore, BSD is based on property value and type, not the buyer’s citizenship (which is a factor for Additional Buyer’s Stamp Duty or ABSD). The idea that residential rates are lower than non-residential rates is factually incorrect, as the residential top marginal rate is 6% compared to 5% for non-residential.

Takeaway: Residential properties in Singapore are subject to a more aggressive progressive BSD structure with a higher top marginal rate of 6% compared to the 5% cap for non-residential properties.

Correct: Under the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) of Singapore, the Consent Obligation requires organizations to obtain the consent of the individual before collecting, using, or disclosing their personal data for a specific purpose. If an organization intends to use personal data for a new purpose that was not previously consented to (such as moving from ‘account maintenance’ to ‘marketing analytics’), it must notify the individual of the new purpose and obtain fresh consent.

Incorrect: Relying on the original consent is incorrect because the PDPA requires purpose limitation; data collected for one purpose cannot be used for another without fresh consent. Engaging a Data Intermediary or signing an NDA does not waive the requirement to have the individual’s consent for the specific purpose of processing. Simply updating a website policy is insufficient for existing data subjects when the purpose of use changes significantly from what was originally agreed upon.

Takeaway: Under the PDPA, any significant change in the purpose of personal data usage requires fresh notification and explicit consent from the individual.

Correct: In Singapore, a residuary clause is vital because it acts as a ‘catch-all’ for any property not specifically mentioned in the will, including assets acquired after the will was signed. Without this clause, any unallocated assets fall into ‘partial intestacy.’ Under the Intestate Succession Act (Cap. 146), these specific assets will be distributed according to the law’s default priority rules (e.g., to spouse and children) rather than the testator’s specific wishes expressed for other parts of their estate.

Incorrect: Distributing assets proportionately among existing beneficiaries is incorrect because specific legacies are strictly limited to the items described; executors cannot expand these gifts without a residuary clause. The omission of assets does not invalidate the entire will; the specific gifts already mentioned remain valid, so the will is not null and void. The Public Trustee does not automatically take over assets for distribution in the presence of a validly appointed executor, and the distribution is governed by the Intestate Succession Act rather than a discretionary court order for ‘fairness’.

Takeaway: A residuary clause is essential in Singapore estate planning to prevent partial intestacy and ensure that after-acquired or overlooked assets are distributed according to the testator’s preferences rather than the Intestate Succession Act.

Correct: The Not Ordinarily Resident (NOR) scheme was lapsed after YA 2020. However, as a transitional arrangement, individuals who were granted the NOR status before the scheme’s lapse (which lasts for a period of five consecutive YAs) can continue to enjoy the NOR tax concessions for the remaining years of their status, provided they continue to meet the specific qualifying criteria for each YA. These concessions include the time apportionment of Singapore employment income and the tax exemption on the employer’s contribution to non-mandatory overseas pension or provident funds.

Incorrect: The suggestion that status was automatically revoked is incorrect because the IRAS provided specific transition rules to honor existing grants for their full five-year duration. The claim that only time apportionment remains is incorrect because both primary concessions (time apportionment and pension contribution exemptions) are preserved during the transition period. The idea that the status can be extended beyond the five-year period is incorrect as the NOR status is non-renewable and the scheme has been phased out for new periods.

Takeaway: Taxpayers granted Singapore’s NOR status prior to its lapse in YA 2020 are entitled to the full five-year transition period for tax concessions, provided annual eligibility criteria are met.

Correct: According to IRAS, to claim Parent Relief for a non-handicapped parent, the dependant must not have had an annual income exceeding $4,000 in the previous year. Since the mother earns $4,500 from her home-based business, she exceeds this income threshold, making the client ineligible for the relief.

Incorrect: Living in the same household is not a mandatory requirement; a claimant can still qualify if they incurred at least $2,000 in supporting the parent in the previous year. The minimum age for a parent to qualify for Parent Relief is 55, not 65. There is no $10,000 support threshold; the requirement for parents living apart is a minimum of $2,000 in annual support.

Takeaway: To qualify for Parent Relief in Singapore, a non-handicapped parent must be at least 55 years old and have an annual income not exceeding $4,000.

Correct: Under MAS Notice FAA-N16, a financial adviser is prohibited from making a recommendation unless they have a reasonable basis. This reasonable basis is established through the KYC process, where the adviser must collect and analyze information regarding the client’s financial status, investment experience, objectives, and risk tolerance. The adviser must then ensure that the recommended product is suitable for the client based on this analysis.

Incorrect: The statement regarding Customer Knowledge Assessment (CKA) is incorrect because CKA (and Customer Account Review for listed products) specifically applies to Specified Investment Products (SIPs), not Excluded Investment Products (EIPs). The statement regarding client refusal to provide information is incorrect because if a client provides insufficient information, the adviser must inform the client that they cannot make a recommendation and should refrain from doing so. The statement regarding product due diligence is incorrect because the duty to understand the product and ensure its suitability applies to all investment products recommended under the Financial Advisers Act, not just SIPs.

Takeaway: Financial advisers must ensure a reasonable basis for recommendations by strictly aligning the client’s KYC profile with the specific features and risks of the investment product.

Correct: In Singapore, interest income derived by individuals from deposits with approved banks or licensed finance companies in Singapore is exempt from income tax. This exemption applies to all individuals, regardless of residency status, provided the interest is not derived through a partnership in Singapore or from the carrying on of a trade, business, or profession. Because it is exempt, it does not need to be declared in the individual’s Income Tax Return to the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS).

Incorrect: The suggestion that interest is taxable at a flat 15% rate is incorrect as bank interest for individuals is exempt, not taxed at a flat rate. The claim that an exemption only applies below a SGD 10,000 threshold is a misconception; there is no such numerical cap on the tax exemption for bank interest in Singapore. The idea that a final withholding tax was deducted by the bank is also incorrect, as Singapore does not impose withholding tax on interest paid by banks to resident individuals.

Takeaway: Interest income earned by individuals from licensed banks in Singapore is exempt from income tax unless it is tied to a trade, business, or partnership.

Correct: In Singapore, the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) applies a progressive property tax structure. Owner-occupied residential properties enjoy lower tax rates compared to non-owner-occupied properties. To manage the risk of overpayment or non-compliance, a taxpayer must ensure they have applied for and met the criteria for these rates, which can only be applied to one residential property that the owner actually resides in. This is a concessionary tax rate intended to encourage home ownership.

Incorrect: Registering multiple properties as owner-occupied is a violation of IRAS regulations as the concession is strictly intended for the owner’s primary residence. Transferring property to a company does not grant owner-occupier status; residential properties owned by entities are taxed at the higher non-owner-occupied rates. Vacancy refunds for property tax were abolished in Singapore on 1 January 2014, so leaving a property empty no longer provides a tax refund or a reduction to owner-occupied rates.

Takeaway: Owner-occupier tax rates in Singapore are a concessionary measure applicable to only one residential property where the owner resides, requiring formal application to IRAS.

Correct: Under the Singapore Wills Act, any amendment to a will made after its execution must be done through a codicil or a new will. For a codicil to be legally valid, it must satisfy the same formal requirements as the original will: it must be in writing, signed by the testator, and attested by two or more witnesses who are present at the same time the testator signs the document.

Incorrect: The suggestion that handwritten notes are exempt from witnessing (holographic wills) is incorrect as Singapore law generally requires strict adherence to the Wills Act formalities for all testamentary documents. Physical attachment or stapling a note to a will does not bypass the legal requirement for formal execution and witnessing. There is no monetary threshold or ‘minor change’ exemption in the Wills Act that allows for informal amendments regardless of the gift’s value.

Takeaway: In Singapore, a codicil must be executed with the same legal formalities as a will, including the requirement for two witnesses, to be valid and enforceable.

Correct: In Singapore, the shift in Working Mother’s Child Relief (WMCR) from a percentage of earned income to a fixed dollar amount is determined by the child’s date of birth. For children born before 1 January 2024, the relief remains percentage-based (15% for the 1st, 20% for the 2nd, and 25% for the 3rd and subsequent). For children born on or after 1 January 2024, the relief is a fixed amount ($8,000 for the 1st, $10,000 for the 2nd, and $12,000 for the 3rd and subsequent). Since the third child is born in late 2024, that child qualifies for the fixed amount of $12,000 based on their position in the birth order, while the older children remain under the old percentage-based rules.

Incorrect: The suggestion that all children must transition to the fixed amount is incorrect because the two systems co-exist based on each child’s specific birth date. The claim that the birth order resets to the first child for the new system is incorrect; the birth order is cumulative regardless of which tax regime applies to each child. There is no provision for a taxpayer to elect which system to use based on their income level; the application of the percentage-based or fixed-sum system is mandatory based on the child’s date of birth.

Takeaway: WMCR eligibility and calculation methods in Singapore are determined by the child’s date of birth, with the fixed-sum system applying only to children born on or after 1 January 2024 while maintaining the cumulative birth order.

Correct: Under the Singapore Mental Capacity Act (MCA), there are five core statutory principles. Principle 1 states that a person must be assumed to have capacity unless it is established that he lacks capacity. Principle 4 requires that any act done or decision made for a person who lacks capacity must be in his best interests. Section 6 of the MCA further clarifies that determining ‘best interests’ involves considering the person’s past and present wishes, feelings, beliefs, and values. Principle 5 requires that the decision-maker must consider whether the purpose can be achieved in a way that is less restrictive of the person’s rights and freedom of action.

Incorrect: Option B is incorrect because Principle 3 of the MCA states that a person is not to be treated as unable to make a decision merely because he makes an unwise decision. Option C is incorrect because Principle 1 establishes a rebuttable presumption of capacity; a diagnosis alone does not automatically strip a person of their legal right to make decisions. Option D is incorrect because the ‘Best Interests’ principle focuses on the individual who lacks capacity, including their own values and wishes, rather than prioritizing the financial interests of the beneficiaries or heirs.

Takeaway: The Mental Capacity Act in Singapore presumes an individual has capacity and mandates that any intervention for those lacking capacity must be in their best interests and utilize the least restrictive means possible.

Correct: Under the Code on Collective Investment Schemes (CIS Code) issued by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), specifically within the investment limits for Core Requirements, a fund is permitted to exceed the prescribed investment limits for a period of up to three months if the breach is due to the exercise of rights or the receipt of bonus issues. This regulatory flexibility ensures that a manager can act in the best interests of unitholders by participating in corporate actions to prevent equity dilution without being forced into immediate, potentially disadvantageous divestments to maintain strict limit compliance at the moment of the event.

Incorrect: The approach of declining the rights to maintain strict limit compliance fails to utilize the specific regulatory relief provided in the CIS Code, which could lead to an avoidable dilution of the fund’s assets and a breach of fiduciary duty to maximize unitholder value. The strategy of selling existing holdings immediately prior to the exercise is often unnecessary and potentially detrimental due to transaction costs and market impact, as the regulations provide a grace period specifically to avoid such forced sales. Seeking a formal waiver from the MAS is incorrect because the three-month grace period is a standing provision within the CIS Code for these specific corporate actions, making a case-by-case waiver application redundant for standard compliance breaches of this nature.

Takeaway: The MAS Code on Collective Investment Schemes provides a three-month grace period for breaches resulting from rights or bonus issues, allowing managers to protect unitholder value while planning a structured rebalancing.

Correct: According to Rule 4 of the Intestate Succession Act in Singapore, if a person dies leaving no spouse and no issue (children or descendants), the surviving parent or parents shall take the whole of the estate in equal shares. Since Mr. Lim’s mother is the only surviving parent, she is entitled to the entire estate. Siblings (Rule 5) and grandparents (Rule 6) only inherit if there are no surviving parents.

Incorrect: Distributing the estate among the mother and sisters is incorrect because siblings only have a claim if there are no surviving parents. The 50/50 split between a parent and siblings is not a valid distribution under the Act; a 50/50 split only occurs between a surviving spouse and surviving parents. Including the grandfather is incorrect because grandparents are lower in the order of priority and only inherit if there are no surviving parents or siblings.

Takeaway: Under the Singapore Intestate Succession Act, surviving parents have absolute priority over siblings and grandparents when the deceased leaves no spouse or children.

Correct: In Singapore, the Wills Act provides that a marriage revokes a will (unless the will was made in contemplation of that marriage). However, there is no corresponding provision that states divorce revokes a will or any part of it. Consequently, if a person divorces and does not update or revoke their existing will, the provisions naming the ex-spouse as a beneficiary or executor remain legally valid and enforceable after the testator’s death.

Incorrect: Option B is incorrect because the Wills Act specifically mentions marriage as a cause for revocation, but does not include divorce. Option C is incorrect because Singapore law does not have a ‘deemed predeceased’ clause for divorcees; this is a common misconception based on the laws of other jurisdictions. Option D is incorrect because a validly executed will that has not been revoked according to the Wills Act remains the primary document for probate, and divorce does not provide automatic grounds for next-of-kin to strike out specific beneficiaries.

Takeaway: In Singapore, divorce does not automatically revoke a will or invalidate bequests to an ex-spouse, necessitating a proactive update of estate plans following a legal separation.

Correct: The SRS is a tax-deferral scheme where contributions are deductible from assessable income, but withdrawals are 50% taxable (after the statutory retirement age) over a 10-year period. For high-net-worth individuals, the strategy is only effective if their effective tax rate on the taxable half of withdrawals in the future is lower than the marginal tax rate saved today. This requires careful projection of future income and tax brackets during the withdrawal phase.

Incorrect: The suggestion to use SRS to offset Seller’s Stamp Duty is incorrect because SRS relief applies to assessable income under the Income Tax Act, not to stamp duties. The idea that the 5% early withdrawal penalty is waived for business investments is false; early withdrawals generally incur a 5% penalty and 100% taxability except in specific cases like death, total permanent disability, or terminal illness. The claim that SRS balances are exempt from tax upon death is incorrect; upon the death of an SRS member, the account is deemed withdrawn, and 50% of the balance is subject to tax in the final tax assessment of the deceased.

Takeaway: SRS planning for HNWIs must focus on the arbitrage between current tax savings and the future tax liability of the 50% taxable withdrawals over the 10-year period.

Correct: Under the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) of Singapore, the Access Obligation stipulates that an organization must, upon request, provide an individual with their personal data in the organization’s possession or control, as well as information about the ways in which that personal data has been or may have been used or disclosed by the organization within a year before the date of the request. While the client asked for 14 months, the statutory requirement under the PDPA specifically covers the 12 months preceding the request.

Incorrect: Approach B is incorrect because the PDPA explicitly includes the right to know how data was used or disclosed, not just the right to see the data itself. Option C is incorrect because while transparency is encouraged, the specific legal obligation under the PDPA is limited to the 12 months prior to the request, not 14 months. Option D is incorrect because there is no blanket exemption for underwriting disclosures; firms must generally disclose which third parties received the data unless a specific exception (like a criminal investigation) applies.

Takeaway: Under Singapore’s PDPA, clients have a legal right to access their personal data and a record of its usage and disclosure for the 12 months preceding their request.

Correct: Under the Foreign-Sourced Income Exemption (FSIE) scheme (Sections 13(7A) to 13(11) of the Income Tax Act), foreign-sourced dividends received by a Singapore resident company are exempt from tax if three conditions are met: 1) The income is subjected to tax in the foreign jurisdiction; 2) The highest corporate tax rate (headline tax rate) of the foreign jurisdiction is at least 15% at the time the income is received in Singapore; and 3) The Comptroller is satisfied that the exemption would be beneficial to the resident person. In this case, since the headline rate is 20% (meeting the 15% threshold) and tax was paid, the exemption applies despite the effective rate being 12%.

Incorrect: Option b is incorrect because the ‘Foreign Tax Rate’ condition refers to the headline (highest) corporate tax rate of the foreign jurisdiction, not the actual or effective tax rate paid. Option c is incorrect because the exemption is not automatic; it is subject to specific conditions under the Income Tax Act. Option d is incorrect because while Singapore generally taxes income received from abroad, the FSIE scheme provides specific exemptions for dividends, branch profits, and service income if the qualifying criteria are met.

Takeaway: For foreign-sourced dividends to be exempt in Singapore, the foreign jurisdiction’s headline tax rate must be at least 15% and the income must have been subjected to tax there.

Correct: In Singapore, the Earned Income Relief (EIR) is tiered based on age and disability status to provide greater support to older workers and those with disabilities. For an individual aged 60 and above who is physically or mentally incapacitated, the maximum EIR is capped at $12,000. This relief is applicable to individuals who have earned income from employment, pensions, or a trade, profession, or business.

Incorrect: The $8,000 figure represents the EIR cap for individuals aged 60 and above who are not handicapped. The $10,000 figure is the EIR cap for handicapped individuals between the ages of 55 and 59. The $4,000 figure is the EIR cap for handicapped individuals who are below the age of 55.

Takeaway: Taxpayers in Singapore aged 60 and above with a certified disability are eligible for the highest Earned Income Relief cap of $12,000.

Correct: In Singapore, the distribution of a non-Muslim person’s estate who dies without a will is governed by the Intestate Succession Act. According to Section 7, Rule 2 of the Act, if a person dies leaving a surviving spouse and children (issue), the spouse is entitled to one-half of the estate, and the children are entitled to the remaining one-half in equal shares. This is a strict legal requirement that overrides any personal preference for ‘equal’ distribution among all survivors.

Incorrect: The approach suggesting an equal three-way split is incorrect because the Intestate Succession Act does not distribute estates per capita across different classes of beneficiaries; it uses specific ratios. The claim regarding a $150,000 statutory legacy is incorrect in this context because that rule (Rule 3) only applies when the deceased leaves a spouse and parents but no children. The suggestion that a spouse only receives a life interest is a misrepresentation of Singapore law, as the spouse receives an absolute interest in their 50% share.

Takeaway: Under Singapore’s Intestate Succession Act, if a person dies leaving both a spouse and children, the estate is legally divided 50% to the spouse and 50% shared equally among the children.

Correct: In Singapore, CPF savings are specifically excluded from a person’s estate to ensure that the deceased’s dependents have access to funds without the delays of the probate process. Consequently, CPF savings cannot be distributed through a Will. Distribution is governed strictly by the nomination made with the CPF Board. If no valid nomination exists, the funds are transferred to the Public Trustee’s Office for distribution according to the Intestate Succession Act (or the Inheritance Certificate for Muslims).

Incorrect: The belief that a Will supersedes a CPF nomination is a common misconception; legal precedence in Singapore dictates that CPF nominations remain valid regardless of subsequent Wills. There is no provision under the Wills Act or CPF Act that allows a Will to override a nomination. Furthermore, the Home Protection Scheme is a mortgage reducing insurance and does not dictate the distribution of CPF cash balances. Registration of a Will with any entity does not grant it the power to distribute CPF savings.

Takeaway: CPF savings are distributed outside of the estate process in Singapore, meaning a Will cannot be used to bequeath CPF funds; only a valid CPF nomination dictates their distribution.

Correct: In Singapore, tax residency is primarily determined by the 183-day rule (physical presence or employment duration). Under IRAS regulations, tax residents are taxed at progressive rates, while non-residents are taxed at a flat rate of 15% or progressive rates (whichever results in a higher tax amount) on employment income. Furthermore, employment of 60 days or less in a year may be exempt from tax. A tracking system is the most effective control to ensure the correct legal framework is applied based on actual duration of stay.

Incorrect: Applying a uniform 15% rate is incorrect because it ignores the progressive tax structure for residents and the potential 60-day exemption for short-term non-residents. Classifying all Employment Pass holders as residents is a regulatory failure because residency is based on physical presence or employment duration (183 days), not the type of work pass held. Relying on self-declaration without objective tracking of days spent in Singapore creates a high risk of incorrect tax filings and non-compliance with the Income Tax Act.

Takeaway: Accurate tracking of physical presence is essential for determining Singapore tax residency and applying the correct tax rates and exemptions under IRAS rules.

Correct: Under Singapore tax regulations set by IRAS, Spouse Relief is subject to an income threshold where the dependent spouse’s annual income must not exceed $4,000. However, for Handicapped Spouse Relief, there is no income threshold requirement for the dependent spouse. Therefore, a taxpayer can claim Handicapped Spouse Relief even if the handicapped spouse earns more than $4,000, whereas they would be disqualified from the standard Spouse Relief.

Incorrect: The claim that the income threshold is waived for both reliefs is incorrect because the $4,000 limit remains a strict requirement for standard Spouse Relief regardless of the spouse’s health status. The assertion that the $4,000 threshold is universal for all dependency reliefs is false, as Handicapped Spouse Relief is a notable exception. Furthermore, Singapore tax law does not allow for the offsetting of a spouse’s income against the claimant’s earned income relief to qualify for dependency claims.

Takeaway: In Singapore, Spouse Relief is restricted by a $4,000 income threshold for the dependent, whereas Handicapped Spouse Relief has no income threshold for the dependent spouse.

Correct: Under IRAS guidelines for the remission of ABSD for married couples, a refund can be claimed if the first residential property is disposed of within 6 months from the date of purchase of the second property (for completed properties) or the TOP/CSC date (whichever is earlier, for uncompleted properties). The couple must consist of at least one Singapore Citizen spouse and must remain married at the time of the refund application.

Incorrect: The 12-month timeframe is incorrect as the statutory limit set by IRAS is 6 months. The suggestion that the first property must be sold before the legal completion of the second to avoid upfront payment is incorrect; ABSD must be paid upfront within 14 days of the contract and then claimed as a refund. While the Minimum Occupation Period (MOP) is a requirement for HDB flat owners, it is not the specific criteria used by IRAS to determine eligibility for an ABSD refund for upgrading to a second private residential property.

Takeaway: To qualify for an ABSD refund when upgrading, a married couple must dispose of their first residential property within six months of acquiring the second completed property or its TOP.

Correct: According to Section 13 of the Wills Act in Singapore, the general rule is that a marriage revokes any will made by the testator prior to that marriage. The primary exception, found in Section 13(2), is when a will is made in contemplation of a marriage. For this exception to apply and prevent revocation, the will must express the intention that it was made in view of the specific marriage that subsequently took place. Simply naming a person who later becomes a spouse is often insufficient; the ‘contemplation’ must be clear.

Incorrect: The suggestion that naming a spouse as a beneficiary automatically satisfies the ‘contemplation’ requirement is a common misconception; the legal standard requires the will to show it was made specifically in view of the marriage. The idea that a will remains valid if the marriage occurs within twelve months is not a provision of the Wills Act. Furthermore, the Intestate Succession Act does not limit the revocation of a will by marriage to only immovable property; Section 13 of the Wills Act applies to the entire will regardless of the asset type.

Takeaway: Under Singapore law, a marriage revokes a prior will unless the document specifically states it was made in contemplation of that particular marriage.

Correct: Under the Mental Capacity Act (Cap. 177A) of Singapore, a Donee for Property & Affairs (Donee M) is granted the authority to make decisions regarding the Donor’s property and financial matters. This includes managing bank accounts, handling investments, and redeeming financial instruments like structured deposits. Since the redemption of a deposit is a financial transaction involving the Donor’s assets, it falls strictly within the scope of Property & Affairs.

Incorrect: Deciding where the Donor should live (such as moving to an assisted-living facility), choosing a specific healthcare provider (like a private hospital), and consenting to medical treatments or clinical trials are all decisions related to the Donor’s healthcare and lifestyle. These fall under the scope of Personal Welfare, which is the responsibility of Donee P. While these decisions may lead to the need for funds, the legal authority to make the choice itself rests with the Personal Welfare Donee.

Takeaway: In Singapore’s LPA framework, the Property and Affairs Donee handles all financial and asset-related transactions, while the Personal Welfare Donee is responsible for healthcare, living arrangements, and daily care decisions.

Correct: In Singapore, following the Budget 2023 announcement, the Working Mother’s Child Relief (WMCR) underwent a significant change. For children born or adopted before 1 January 2024, the WMCR remains a percentage of the mother’s earned income (15% for the 1st child, 20% for the 2nd, and 25% for the 3rd and subsequent). For children born or adopted on or after 1 January 2024, the WMCR is changed to a fixed dollar amount ($8,000 for the 1st child, $10,000 for the 2nd, and $12,000 for the 3rd and subsequent). This is applied on a per-child basis depending on their birth or adoption date.

Incorrect: The transition to a fixed dollar amount is not retrospective; therefore, children born before 2024 are not moved to the new system. There is no provision in the Singapore Income Tax Act that allows a taxpayer to elect which system to use based on which provides a higher relief; the system is determined strictly by the child’s birth or adoption date. The fixed dollar amount applies to all children (1st, 2nd, and subsequent) born on or after 1 January 2024, not just the third child.

Takeaway: WMCR for children born before 2024 is percentage-based, whereas for those born on or after 1 January 2024, it is a fixed dollar amount based on the child’s order in the family.