Cheok Doris v Commissioner of Stamp Duties: Stamp Duty Refund on Rescinded Property Sale

In Cheok Doris v Commissioner of Stamp Duties, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal by Cheok Doris against the Commissioner of Stamp Duties regarding the refund of stamp duty paid on a rescinded contract for the sale of property. The appellant argued that the vendor was unable to prove good title, entitling them to a refund under s 22(6)(a) of the Stamp Duties Act. The court, presided over by Choo Han Teck J, dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving the vendor's inability to transfer good title. The court held that the Commissioner was entitled to assess ad valorem duty based on the stipulated land area in the agreement for sale. The judgment was delivered on 15 January 2010.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Tax

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding stamp duty refund on a rescinded property sale. The court dismissed the appeal, holding the appellant failed to prove the vendor's inability to prove title.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Commissioner of Stamp DutiesRespondentGovernment AgencyAppeal dismissedWon
Foo Hui Min of Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore
Jimmy Oei of Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore
Cheok DorisAppellantIndividualAppeal dismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Choo Han TeckJYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Foo Hui MinInland Revenue Authority of Singapore
Jimmy OeiInland Revenue Authority of Singapore
Gan Hiang ChyeKhattarWong
Harleen KaurKhattarWong

4. Facts

  1. The appellant and her husband entered into a contract to purchase a property at 96 Sophia Road.
  2. The purchase price was $6,000,000, and the appellant paid a $60,000 option fee.
  3. The contract was rescinded by mutual agreement, and the option fee was refunded.
  4. The Commissioner of Stamp Duties assessed the contract with $174,600 in ad valorem stamp duty.
  5. The appellant sought a refund of the stamp duty under s 22(6)(a) of the Stamp Duties Act.
  6. The appellant argued that the vendor was unable to prove good title due to discrepancies in the floor area calculation.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Cheok Doris v Commissioner of Stamp Duties, , [2010] SGHC 17

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Option granted
Option served on vendor
Contract rescinded
Originating Summons No 1263 of 2008
Judgment reserved
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Refund of Stamp Duty
    • Outcome: The court held that the appellant failed to prove that the vendor was unable to prove good title, and therefore the stamp duty was not refundable.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Vendor's ability to prove title
      • Interpretation of s 22(6)(a) of the Stamp Duties Act
  2. Good Title
    • Outcome: The court did not make a determination on whether the vendor was able to transfer good title.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Marketable title
      • Obligation to deliver good title

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Refund of Stamp Duty

9. Cause of Actions

  • Claim for Refund of Stamp Duty

10. Practice Areas

  • Tax Law
  • Real Estate Law
  • Litigation

11. Industries

  • Real Estate

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
No cited cases

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Stamp Duties Act (Cap 312, 2006 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Stamp Duty
  • Rescinded Contract
  • Good Title
  • Ad Valorem Duty
  • Option Fee
  • Marketable Title

15.2 Keywords

  • stamp duty
  • property sale
  • rescinded contract
  • good title
  • refund
  • Singapore
  • High Court

17. Areas of Law

16. Subjects

  • Taxation
  • Property Law
  • Contract Law