<p><img src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/mNCvdIDuDb4uKetIeTDXHw--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTEyNDI7aD04Mjc-/https://media.zenfs.com/en/straits_times_442/a76a3ec2034342ece3cd2f9d1a3c4471?x-oss-process=image/auto-orient,1/interlace,1/resize,w_1440,h_1440/quality,q_95/format,jpg" alt="" original-src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/mNCvdIDuDb4uKetIeTDXHw--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTEyNDI7aD04Mjc-/https://media.zenfs.com/en/straits_times_442/a76a3ec2034342ece3cd2f9d1a3c4471"/></p>
<p>张汉铭先生和他的女友刘宇彤在 2021 年 5 月以 138 万美元的价格购买了位于克莱门蒂布鲁克维尔的 Ki Residences 公寓。</p>
<p>新加坡——越来越多的房地产中介卷入了所谓的 “99-1” 房产销售安排的后果，以帮助买家避免支付更多的印花税，目前 Huttons Asia 也被卷入其中。</p>
<p>根据《海峡时报》获得的高等法院文件，一对夫妇于 1 月 6 日起诉 Huttons Asia、房地产代理陈志豪和 Pertinent Law，因其在购买 138 万美元的 Ki Residences 公寓时非法规避印花税而被处以 406,285 美元的罚款。</p>
<p>张汉铭先生在 2021 年 5 月购买该房产时年仅 26 岁，而他的女友刘宇彤女士当时 22 岁，是一名学生，他们因疏忽性虚假陈述和违反照顾义务而寻求损害赔偿。</p>
<p>此案是越来越多的诉讼中的最新一起，这些诉讼涉及 PropNex、ERA Realty、代理商和律师事务所，均与 “二步 99-1” 销售安排有关。</p>
<p>这对夫妇表示，他们在 2021 年 2 月 14 日聘请了陈先生作为他们的房地产代理，他告诉他们这种安排是一个 “合法且正当” 的策略，可以减少应支付的额外买家印花税（ABSD）。</p>
<p>诉讼称，陈先生建议刘女士在 2019 年 10 月获得新加坡国籍后，首先购买该房产，作为首次新加坡购房者，她将不需要支付 ABSD。</p>
<p>然后她将把 1% 的房产出售给张先生，当时他正在工作，这将使他们能够根据他的工资申请更高的贷款额度。</p>
<p>根据陈先生的说法，这种安排将帮助这对夫妇节省应支付的 ABSD，因为张先生只需对公寓购买价格的 1% 支付 20% 的 ABSD——当时外国人的税率。</p>
<p>尽管他们对该安排有疑虑，但这对夫妇在陈先生的诱导下继续进行，刘女士于 2021 年 4 月 26 日支付了预订费并获得了购买选项。2021 年 5 月 10 日，刘女士以 138 万美元的价格以她的名义购买了公寓。</p>
<p>两周后，她以 13,770 美元的价格将自己在该房产中的 1% 股份出售给张先生。</p>
<p>2021 年 7 月 25 日，公寓的转售完成，张先生持有 1% 的股份，刘女士持有 99% 的股份，作为共同租户。</p>
<p>然而，在 2025 年 12 月 18 日，新加坡国内税务局（IRAS）通知这对夫妇，将根据《印花税法》第 33A 条款对非法规避印花税进行追责，并处以 406,285 美元的罚款，其中包括 135,428 美元的 50% 附加费。</p>
<p>当被问及截至目前从该交易中追回了多少未支付的 ABSD 和附加费时，IRAS 发言人表示：“由于调查和审计仍在进行中，我们目前无法分享任何信息。”</p>
<p>这对夫妇由 WongPartnership 的高文杰律师代理，指控 Pertinent Law 在代表他们购买公寓时 “未达到合理合格和勤勉律师应有的标准”。</p>
<p>但 Pertinent Law 由 LVM Law Chambers 的李先生代理，否认了这些指控，称该事务所是受聘进行过户交易，而这对夫妇 “以他们所指示的精确结构获得了该房产的所有权”。</p>
<p>“申请 ‘99-1’ 安排有合法的商业目的，当时 IRAS 没有任何迹象表明采用这种安排会被视为潜在的印花税规避安排，” 他们在 1 月 27 日提交的辩护文件中表示。</p>
<p>李先生指出，这对夫妇在未寻求关于 ‘99-1’ 安排风险的具体税法建议方面存在 “共同过失”，并未告知律师事务所他们打算利用该安排来规避 ABSD。</p>
<p>他补充说，律师事务所没有义务质疑或二次猜测（这对夫妇）选择采用 ‘99-1’ 安排的决定。</p>
<p>李先生指出，公寓的购买部分是通过这对夫妇共同申请的 UOB 抵押贷款融资的。</p>
<p>“因此，这对夫妇有必要通过 ‘99-1’ 安排来结构化购买，以获得融资，同时避免 ABSD 责任，” 他说。</p>
<p>这是因为这对夫妇本来无法购买公寓，因为当时作为学生的刘女士无法作为唯一借款人获得贷款。</p>
<p>当时作为外国人的张先生将需支付购买价格的 20% 的 ABSD，即 275,400 美元。他在 2021 年 9 月成为永久居民，并于 2025 年 6 月获得国籍。</p>
<p>在他们的诉讼中，这对夫妇指控 Huttons 未能确保对陈先生进行适当的培训和监督，从而使他做出 “虚假” 陈述以 “鼓励他们使用非法的印花税规避安排”。</p>
<p>Huttons 和陈先生由 Withers KhattarWong 的林女士代理，在 2 月 3 日提交的辩护文件中声称，二步 99-1 安排是 “在公共活动中由律师事务所推荐的”。</p>
<p>陈先生表示，Pertinent Law 的业务发展经理 Gregory Quake 先生声称这种安排是 “我们的强项”。</p>
<p>“由于这是来自一家专业律师事务所的代表，（陈先生）没有理由相信这种安排不是一个合法的房地产购买安排，” 法庭文件中指出。</p>
<p>因此，陈先生，“一名自雇人士而非（Huttons）的员工”，告诉这对夫妇，这种安排是 “由在新楼盘展示单元进行培训的律师事务所推荐的”。</p>
<p>他补充说，在 2021 年 4 月 18 日，他将 UOB 银行的执行官 Eliza Lim 加入了与这对夫妇的 WhatsApp 群聊，并向他们介绍了她。</p>
<p>虽然 Lim 女士询问了这对夫妇的财务状况，但 “她并没有对预期的两步 99-1 安排表示任何担忧”。</p>
<p>被告补充说，这对夫妇 “非常清楚” 陈先生并没有法律培训或资格提供关于公寓购买的法律建议。</p>
<p>“事实上，（陈先生）曾向（这对夫妇）介绍（Pertinent Law）以提供法律建议，” 他们补充道。</p>
<p>Huttons 和陈先生对这对夫妇的损害索赔提出异议，指出这对夫妇 “无论如何都必须为（公寓）购买支付 ABSD，而该支付并不是遭受的损失”。</p>
<p>此外，他们补充说，这对夫妇需要 “考虑 Ki Residences 单元的资本收益或增值”。</p>
<p>来源：海峡时报 © SPH Media Limited。转载需获得许可</p>
<p>了解如何享受其他优质文章请点击这里</p>

<p>Huttons Asia 和其他房地产机构正面临针对 “99-1” 房产销售安排的诉讼，该安排旨在规避印花税。一对夫妇，张先生和刘女士，因被代理人告知这种方法是合法的而起诉，要求赔偿 406,285 美元的罚款。他们声称存在过失虚假陈述和违反照顾义务。参与的律师事务所对这些指控表示异议，称他们是按照指示行事，并且这对夫妇未能寻求适当的税务建议。新加坡国内税务局已对非法规避印花税行为处以罚款</p>

<p><img src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/mNCvdIDuDb4uKetIeTDXHw--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTEyNDI7aD04Mjc-/https://media.zenfs.com/en/straits_times_442/a76a3ec2034342ece3cd2f9d1a3c4471" alt="" original-src="https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/mNCvdIDuDb4uKetIeTDXHw--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTEyNDI7aD04Mjc-/https://media.zenfs.com/en/straits_times_442/a76a3ec2034342ece3cd2f9d1a3c4471"/></p>
<p>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.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>张汉铭先生和他的女友刘宇彤在 2021 年 5 月以 138 万美元的价格购买了位于克莱门蒂布鲁克维尔的 Ki Residences 公寓。</p>
</div><p>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.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>新加坡——越来越多的房地产中介卷入了所谓的 “99-1” 房产销售安排的后果，以帮助买家避免支付更多的印花税，目前 Huttons Asia 也被卷入其中。</p>
</div><p>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.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>根据《海峡时报》获得的高等法院文件，一对夫妇于 1 月 6 日起诉 Huttons Asia、房地产代理陈志豪和 Pertinent Law，因其在购买 138 万美元的 Ki Residences 公寓时非法规避印花税而被处以 406,285 美元的罚款。</p>
</div><p>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.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>张汉铭先生在 2021 年 5 月购买该房产时年仅 26 岁，而他的女友刘宇彤女士当时 22 岁，是一名学生，他们因疏忽性虚假陈述和违反照顾义务而寻求损害赔偿。</p>
</div><p>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.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>此案是越来越多的诉讼中的最新一起，这些诉讼涉及 PropNex、ERA Realty、代理商和律师事务所，均与 “二步 99-1” 销售安排有关。</p>
</div><p>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.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>这对夫妇表示，他们在 2021 年 2 月 14 日聘请了陈先生作为他们的房地产代理，他告诉他们这种安排是一个 “合法且正当” 的策略，可以减少应支付的额外买家印花税（ABSD）。</p>
</div><p>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.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>诉讼称，陈先生建议刘女士在 2019 年 10 月获得新加坡国籍后，首先购买该房产，作为首次新加坡购房者，她将不需要支付 ABSD。</p>
</div><p>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.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>然后她将把 1% 的房产出售给张先生，当时他正在工作，这将使他们能够根据他的工资申请更高的贷款额度。</p>
</div><p>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.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>根据陈先生的说法，这种安排将帮助这对夫妇节省应支付的 ABSD，因为张先生只需对公寓购买价格的 1% 支付 20% 的 ABSD——当时外国人的税率。</p>
</div><p>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.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>尽管他们对该安排有疑虑，但这对夫妇在陈先生的诱导下继续进行，刘女士于 2021 年 4 月 26 日支付了预订费并获得了购买选项。2021 年 5 月 10 日，刘女士以 138 万美元的价格以她的名义购买了公寓。</p>
</div><p>Two weeks later, she sold her 1 per cent share in the property to Mr Zhang for $13,770.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>两周后，她以 13,770 美元的价格将自己在该房产中的 1% 股份出售给张先生。</p>
</div><p>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.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>2021 年 7 月 25 日，公寓的转售完成，张先生持有 1% 的股份，刘女士持有 99% 的股份，作为共同租户。</p>
</div><p>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.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>然而，在 2025 年 12 月 18 日，新加坡国内税务局（IRAS）通知这对夫妇，将根据《印花税法》第 33A 条款对非法规避印花税进行追责，并处以 406,285 美元的罚款，其中包括 135,428 美元的 50% 附加费。</p>
</div><p>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.”</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>当被问及截至目前从该交易中追回了多少未支付的 ABSD 和附加费时，IRAS 发言人表示：“由于调查和审计仍在进行中，我们目前无法分享任何信息。”</p>
</div><p>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.”</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>这对夫妇由 WongPartnership 的高文杰律师代理，指控 Pertinent Law 在代表他们购买公寓时 “未达到合理合格和勤勉律师应有的标准”。</p>
</div><p>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”.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>但 Pertinent Law 由 LVM Law Chambers 的李先生代理，否认了这些指控，称该事务所是受聘进行过户交易，而这对夫妇 “以他们所指示的精确结构获得了该房产的所有权”。</p>
</div><p>“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.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>“申请 ‘99-1’ 安排有合法的商业目的，当时 IRAS 没有任何迹象表明采用这种安排会被视为潜在的印花税规避安排，” 他们在 1 月 27 日提交的辩护文件中表示。</p>
</div><p>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.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>李先生指出，这对夫妇在未寻求关于 ‘99-1’ 安排风险的具体税法建议方面存在 “共同过失”，并未告知律师事务所他们打算利用该安排来规避 ABSD。</p>
</div><p>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.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>他补充说，律师事务所没有义务质疑或二次猜测（这对夫妇）选择采用 ‘99-1’ 安排的决定。</p>
</div><p>Mr Lee noted that the condo purchase was partly financed with a UOB mortgage loan taken out jointly by the couple.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>李先生指出，公寓的购买部分是通过这对夫妇共同申请的 UOB 抵押贷款融资的。</p>
</div><p>“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.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>“因此，这对夫妇有必要通过 ‘99-1’ 安排来结构化购买，以获得融资，同时避免 ABSD 责任，” 他说。</p>
</div><p>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.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>这是因为这对夫妇本来无法购买公寓，因为当时作为学生的刘女士无法作为唯一借款人获得贷款。</p>
</div><p>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.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>当时作为外国人的张先生将需支付购买价格的 20% 的 ABSD，即 275,400 美元。他在 2021 年 9 月成为永久居民，并于 2025 年 6 月获得国籍。</p>
</div><p>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”.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>在他们的诉讼中，这对夫妇指控 Huttons 未能确保对陈先生进行适当的培训和监督，从而使他做出 “虚假” 陈述以 “鼓励他们使用非法的印花税规避安排”。</p>
</div><p>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”.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>Huttons 和陈先生由 Withers KhattarWong 的林女士代理，在 2 月 3 日提交的辩护文件中声称，二步 99-1 安排是 “在公共活动中由律师事务所推荐的”。</p>
</div><p>Mr Chan said that Pertinent Law’s business development manager, Mr Gregory Quake, had claimed that this arrangement is “our forte”.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>陈先生表示，Pertinent Law 的业务发展经理 Gregory Quake 先生声称这种安排是 “我们的强项”。</p>
</div><p>“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.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>“由于这是来自一家专业律师事务所的代表，（陈先生）没有理由相信这种安排不是一个合法的房地产购买安排，” 法庭文件中指出。</p>
</div><p>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”.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>因此，陈先生，“一名自雇人士而非（Huttons）的员工”，告诉这对夫妇，这种安排是 “由在新楼盘展示单元进行培训的律师事务所推荐的”。</p>
</div><p>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.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>他补充说，在 2021 年 4 月 18 日，他将 UOB 银行的执行官 Eliza Lim 加入了与这对夫妇的 WhatsApp 群聊，并向他们介绍了她。</p>
</div><p>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”.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>虽然 Lim 女士询问了这对夫妇的财务状况，但 “她并没有对预期的两步 99-1 安排表示任何担忧”。</p>
</div><p>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.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>被告补充说，这对夫妇 “非常清楚” 陈先生并没有法律培训或资格提供关于公寓购买的法律建议。</p>
</div><p>“In fact, (Mr Chan) had introduced (Pertinent Law) to (the couple) to provide legal advice,” they added.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>“事实上，（陈先生）曾向（这对夫妇）介绍（Pertinent Law）以提供法律建议，” 他们补充道。</p>
</div><p>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”.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>Huttons 和陈先生对这对夫妇的损害索赔提出异议，指出这对夫妇 “无论如何都必须为（公寓）购买支付 ABSD，而该支付并不是遭受的损失”。</p>
</div><p>Further, the couple would need to “account for the capital gains or appreciation in value” of the Ki Residences unit, they added.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>此外，他们补充说，这对夫妇需要 “考虑 Ki Residences 单元的资本收益或增值”。</p>
</div><p>Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>来源：海峡时报 © SPH Media Limited。转载需获得许可</p>
</div><p>Discover how to enjoy other premium articles here</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>了解如何享受其他优质文章请点击这里</p>
</div>

Huttons Asia、房地产代理和律师事务所因外国人和学生购买公寓的 99-1 交易而被起诉