Rounding up SSD matters.

So, what happened to the SSD owners? I do not personally know any one with a SSD issue so I can only glean what happened next from the sparse information eked out to us on the occasional up update.

It seems after contacting the IRS and pleading their case, they might have gotten a reprieve until after the STB Sales Order. A few months to gather the cash is better than 2 weeks. On 2 Jan 2018 (Sales Order Date) , the FB informed affected owners that they would be contacted soon by the lawyers. 

So the money is probably due now. 

Good luck to them. We might all find ourselves in this boat soon enough if we are unlucky enough to move to an estate which starts up an enbloc attempt soon after. I would fight it tooth and nail, of course, and bring the SSD issue to the forefront. 
My sales proceeds minus $270k? Not on your nelly!

Actually, someone posed two interesting questions (below) to me on this blog. someone who is obviously going through a collective sale and is affected by the SSD issue. 

My answer:

Hello,

Thank you for your kind remarks about the blog - it was never meant to be a source of information but more of a commentary on the ongoing events in my estate since 2007. 

The IRAS will never waiver or reduce the SSD owing. The Law was crafted to reduce the flipping of property by making it unprofitable to do so. Unfortunately, the instrument used was too blunt and genuine, innocent homeowners have found themselves caught up in the net. The Government will have to be pressured into making changes - the same way it was pressured to change the LTSA in 2010 by people complaining to the MPs. letters to the Press, the Straits Times highlighting the issue and gutsy Minority SPs taking the matter to High Court. 

Q: Do you think there is any way that the CSC could have crafted the method of apportionment to cater for owners affected by SSD - in such a way that the eventual proceeds received are equal?

There is no 'one size fits all' method of apportionment. The CSC should propose a method that should not disadvantage one group of owner over another. Having gone through many collective sale EOGMs I can tell you one thing - everyone is looking out for themselves and it would be a hard sell indeed to get the majority of owners to part with even a small portion of their sales proceeds to pay other SPs' tax bills. People will argue that they knew the estate had enbloc potential when they bought it etc. I suppose it depends on the size of the estate and the number of units affected by SSD. If it is a deal breaker, they might consider working the SSD into the MOA formula. It is not impossible for them to do so - but my experience of human nature so far is that people are tough nuts when it comes to money.

But would it fly?

From a  Minority viewpoint, I would say that if the CSC adopted a MOA that favoured SSD owners, then that would be a very strong  reason to make an objection (aka Gilstead Court)'. If they accommodated SSD owners, why not those with recent renovation, why not pay someone's outstanding property tax, or MCST debt? No that door should never be opened in my opinion.  I would say it disadvantaged the minority and might be construed as 'objectionable' by the courts. 

Second Q: Do you think that the unequal amount received by SSD affected owners are grounds for objecting to the method of approval?

I think not because it is not the CSC's fault that the tax laws are crafted as they are. There is no obligation in Law for the CSC to make good all owners' tax or personal debt when considering the MOA.  It would be outrageous to do so. The LTSA is for the protection of Minority owners only and  those especially facing financial loss. The LTSA is clear on what constitutes financial loss and SSD was not envisaged at the time of drafting.

It is not financial loss 'by reason only that his net gain from the sale of his lot will be less than other Subsidiary proprietors'  LTSA Fourth Schedule

.. and that, my friend, is that. 

The SSD issue has never been tackled at High Court - but if it were, I would put my money on the SP losing the case. It's a bitter pill to take - and one I hope will not befall me in my next home. 

All in my humble opinion, of course.

Cheers