avoid paying the ABSD<\/span><\/a> if they were to buy a second property.<\/p>\nMs Wong disagreed, alleging that the couple intended for the 99:1 ratio to reflect their legal and beneficial ownership. There was no agreement between the parties that Ms Wong, who is represented by Drew & Napier director Terence Tan, would be entitled to the property only if Mr Ngor cheated on her during their relationship.<\/p>\n
The High Court in June 2025 rejected Ms Wong\u2019s claim\u00a0of 99 per cent ownership and found that she held the property on a resulting trust for Mr Ngor because he had contributed more financially to the purchase.<\/p>\n
The lower court also ruled that Mr Ngor owned a 54.22 per cent beneficial interest in the property after taking into account each owner\u2019s financial contributions.<\/p>\n
A beneficial interest refers to the right to benefit from an asset, even if another person is the registered owner. In other words, the registered owner is holding the property, or a part of it, on trust for the contributor.<\/p>\n
But, in a written judgment delivered on May 20, the Court of Appeal ruled that \u201ceven if we had not found that the parties\u2019 common intention was for the 99:1 ratio to reflect their legal and beneficial ownership, the issue of illegality would have been an independent basis for denying Jake\u2019s claim\u201d.<\/p>\n
This is because allowing Mr Ngor\u2019s claim would amount to condoning an illegal purpose to evade the ABSD.<\/p>\n
Real estate agencies and some law firms have been mired in legal disputes with buyers in recent months after the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore began cracking down on \u201c99-1\u201d property sale arrangements that enabled buyers to avoid paying more in stamp duties.<\/p>\n
Singapore citizens pay 20 per cent ABSD when purchasing a second residential property and 30 per cent for a third and subsequent home.<\/p>\n
The 99-1 arrangement is a method by which co-owners seek to purchase two residential properties without incurring the ABSD. First, the co-owners purchase the first property in a 99:1 ratio. This allows them to obtain housing loans in both their names and to access both their Central Provident Fund monies to finance the purchase.<\/p>\n
The co-owners decouple their interests in the first property. The 1 per cent owner transfers the 1 per cent share to the 99 per cent owner, and the parties pay stamp duty on that 1 per cent transfer.<\/p>\n
The owner who no longer retains an interest in the first property is now able to purchase the second property in his name without incurring the ABSD.<\/p>\n
The Court of Appeal found that if the resulting trust had arisen over the property, it would have \u201callowed Jake to retain a beneficial interest in the property while purchasing a second property without incurring ABSD, thereby amounting to tax evasion\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u201cGiven the serious nature and gravity of tax evasion and the importance of maintaining compliance with the ABSD regime, we are of the view that it would not have been a disproportionate response to the illegality to deny Jake\u2019s claim,\u201d it ruled.<\/p>\n
The Court of Appeal also found that the lower court\u2019s evaluation of the evidence was incorrect because it \u201cdid not properly address the numerous difficulties and inconsistencies in Jake\u2019s case, and appears not to have considered or given weight to Millie\u2019s evidence without explaining why that evidence was not credible\u201d.<\/p>\n
The Court of Appeal rejected Mr Ngor\u2019s claims that he only agreed to Ms Wong beneficially owning her 99 per cent registered interest in the property if he cheated on her. The three-judge court found his explanation of this so-called cheating condition \u201cinconsistent and unreliable\u201d and \u201cnot borne out by the evidence\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u201cInitially, Jake suggested that the cheating condition was that if he cheated on Millie, she would fully own the property… But his case on the cheating condition morphed at trial. He suggested that the cheating condition was that if he cheated on Millie, he would not contest her 99 per cent registered interest, and only then would she beneficially own 99 per cent of the property.<\/p>\n
\u201cNo explanation was given for this inconsistency and the (High Court judge) failed to consider this. Given that the cheating condition was central to Jake\u2019s case, this inconsistency severely undermined that case,\u201d the Court of Appeal ruled.<\/p>\n
In contrast, Ms Wong\u2019s case that her 99 per cent beneficial ownership of the property was not conditional on Mr Ngor cheating is more logical, it found.<\/p>\n
Her position was that she wanted them to remain in a relationship. As she was insecure about Mr Ngor\u2019s fidelity, she wanted 99 per cent ownership of the property as a demonstration of his commitment.<\/p>\n
If he cheated on her and they broke up, he would be left holding just 1 per cent of the property and would no longer be entitled to regard the property as a joint investment.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis deterrence was therefore precisely what Millie wanted \u2013 the property would be held by her as ransom and Jake would only enjoy its benefits if he did not cheat and remained in a relationship with her,\u201d the Court of Appeal found.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\n
Read Full Article At Source <\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"SINGAPORE \u2013 The Court of Appeal has upheld a woman\u2019s 99 per cent stake in a $1.865 million condominium even though her former boyfriend paid…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":54538,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"fifu_image_url":"","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[2611],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-54537","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-buzz-headlines","wpcat-2611-id"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sgbuzz.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/54537","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sgbuzz.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sgbuzz.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sgbuzz.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sgbuzz.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=54537"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/sgbuzz.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/54537\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sgbuzz.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/54538"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sgbuzz.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=54537"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sgbuzz.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=54537"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sgbuzz.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=54537"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}