Huttons Asia, property agent, law firm sued over 99-1 deal for condo bought by foreigner and student

Mr Zhang Han Ming and his girlfriend Liu Yu Tong purchased their $1.38 million condo at Ki Residences in Brookvale, Clementi, in May 2021.SINGAPORE – More real estate agencies are getting ensnared in the fallout of so-called “99-1” property sale arrangements for buyers to avoid paying more in stamp duties, with Huttons Asia now caught in the crosshairs.According to High Court documents obtained by The Straits Times, a couple sued Huttons Asia, property agent Chan Chee Hoe and Pertinent Law on Jan 6 over $406,285 in penalties for illegal stamp duty avoidance in their purchase of a $1.38 million condo at Ki Residences in Brookvale, in the Clementi area.Mr Zhang Han Ming, a 26-year-old Chinese national at the time of the property’s purchase in May 2021, and his girlfriend, Ms Liu Yu Tong, then a 22-year-old student, are seeking damages for losses incurred due to negligent misrepresentation and breach of duty of care.The case is the latest in a growing number of lawsuits that have implicated PropNex, ERA Realty, agents, and law firms over “two-step 99-1” sale arrangements.The couple, who said they engaged Mr Chan as their property agent on Feb 14, 2021, said he had told them that this arrangement was a “legal and legitimate” strategy to reduce the additional buyer’s stamp duty (ABSD) payable.The suit alleged that Mr Chan had suggested that Ms Liu, who obtained her Singapore citizenship in October 2019, could first buy the property, and she would not be subject to ABSD as she was a first-time Singapore home buyer.She would then sell 1 per cent of the property to Mr Zhang, who was employed at the time, and this would allow them to qualify for a higher loan amount using his salary.This arrangement, according to Mr Chan, would help the couple save on ABSD payable as Mr Zhang would only have to pay 20 per cent ABSD – then the rate for foreigners – on the 1 per cent of the purchase price of the condo.Despite their doubts about the arrangement, the couple allegedly proceeded on Mr Chan’s inducements, with Ms Liu paying the booking fee and obtaining the option to purchase on April 26, 2021. On May 10, 2021, Ms Liu bought the condo in her name for $1.38 million.Two weeks later, she sold her 1 per cent share in the property to Mr Zhang for $13,770.On July 25, 2021, the sub-sale of the condo was completed, with Mr Zhang holding 1 per cent and Ms Liu holding 99 per cent as tenants-in-common.However, on Dec 18, 2025, the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) notified the couple that it would be invoking section 33A of the Stamp Duties Act for illegal stamp duty avoidance, and imposed a $406,285 penalty that included a 50 per cent surcharge of $135,428.When asked how much in unpaid ABSD and surcharges from this transaction have been clawed back to date, an IRAS spokesperson said: “As investigations and audits are still ongoing, we are unable to share any information at this point.”The couple, who are represented by WongPartnership’s Mr Gavin Neo, alleged that Pertinent Law, which represented the couple in their condo purchase, “fell short of the standard that would be expected of a reasonably competent and diligent lawyer.”But Pertinent Law, which is represented by Mr Joseph Lee of LVM Law Chambers, disputed the claims, saying that the firm was engaged to carry out a conveyancing transaction, and the couple “acquired title to the property in the precise structure they had directed”.“There were legitimate commercial purposes for the application of a ‘99-1’ arrangement and no indication from IRAS at that time that the adoption of such an arrangement would be regarded as a potential stamp duty avoidance arrangement,” it said in defence papers filed on Jan 27.Mr Lee pointed out that the couple were “contributorily negligent in failing to seek specific tax law advice on the risks of the ‘99-1’ arrangement” and in failing to inform the law firm that they intended to use this arrangement to avoid ABSD.There was “no duty on the law firm to question or second-guess the (the couple’s) choice to adopt the ‘99-1’ arrangement”, he added.Mr Lee noted that the condo purchase was partly financed with a UOB mortgage loan taken out jointly by the couple.“It was therefore necessary for (the couple) to structure the purchase using the ‘99-1’ arrangement to obtain financing and, at the same time, avoid ABSD liability,” he said.This is because the couple would not have been able to buy the condo because Ms Liu, then a student, would not have been able to obtain the loan as a sole borrower.Mr Zhang, who was a foreigner then, would have been liable for ABSD at 20 per cent of the purchase price, or $275,400. He became a permanent resident in September 2021 and obtained citizenship in June 2025.In their suit, the couple alleged that Huttons breached its duty of care by failing to ensure proper training and supervision of Mr Chan and allowing him to make “false” representations to “encourage them to (use) illegal stamp duty avoidance arrangements”.Huttons and Mr Chan, who are represented by Ms Sharon Lin of Withers KhattarWong, in defence papers filed Feb 3, claimed that the two-step 99-to-1 arrangement was “recommended by law firms at public events”.Mr Chan said that Pertinent Law’s business development manager, Mr Gregory Quake, had claimed that this arrangement is “our forte”.“As this came from a representative of a professional law firm, (Mr Chan) did not have any reason to believe that this arrangement was not a legitimate property purchase arrangement,” the court papers stated.As such, Mr Chan, “a self-employed person and not a (Huttons) employee”, had told the couple that this arrangement was “recommended by law firms conducting training at show flats of new launches”.He added, that on April 18, 2021, he added Ms Eliza Lim, a UOB bank executive to a WhatsApp group chat with the couple and introduced them to her.While Ms Lim asked for more information about the couple’s financial situation, “she did not raise any concerns about the intended two-step 99-1 arrangement”.The defendants added that the couple were “well aware” that Mr Chan was not legally trained or qualified to provide legal advice on the condo purchase.“In fact, (Mr Chan) had introduced (Pertinent Law) to (the couple) to provide legal advice,” they added.Disputing the couple’s claims for damages, Huttons and Mr Chan pointed out that the couple “would have had to pay ABSD on the (condo) purchase regardless, and that the said payment is not a loss suffered”.Further, the couple would need to “account for the capital gains or appreciation in value” of the Ki Residences unit, they added.Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproductionDiscover how to enjoy other premium articles here