Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Court ruling creates uncertainty for developers

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    10,829

    Default Court ruling creates uncertainty for developers

    http://www.todayonline.com/business/...nty-developers

    Property

    Court ruling creates uncertainty for developers

    By COLIN TAN
    -
    10 May


    In a landmark ruling last month, the Court of Appeal overturned a High Court decision and affirmed the right of the Chief Assessor to raise the annual land value for the Sail@Marina Bay site from the original S$27 million to S$51.4 million when it was re-assessed to market value in 2009, notwithstanding that pre-sales of units had taken place.

    When the case first surfaced, I was surprised by the action of the tax authorities as the developer Glengary had sold nearly all of its residential units — 1,106 units or some 97 per cent — in 2004 and 2005, and could not possibly benefit much, if at all, from the subsequent sharp rise in land values.

    The move shocked the real estate industry because such an action had never been undertaken before, especially considering that the land was bought from the State, which came with a stipulated fixed time limit for project completion. Thus, any intention to profit from land-banking activities would already have been severely curtailed.

    The tax authorities may have wanted to establish a tax principle as well as set a precedent for future similar action, whether or not benefits have accrued to the developer.

    Whether intended or not, the latest judgment has introduced more uncertainty into the business of property development, which is already a high-risk activity.

    Developers will now have to factor into their tender bids any expected or unexpected significant increases in land value before their targeted project completion dates. In the current case, Glengary has to fork out more than S$2 million in additional taxes. While this amount may be small compared to the value of the project, it can have a significant impact on the developer’s cash flow.

    Having earlier pre-sales and selling out completely within a few months of securing the site is now not without its disadvantages.

    Also, now that a precedent of making the developer liable for increases in land value has been set, it also opens the path — in principle — for developers to apply for a downward revision of assessed land values should there be a sharp property market downturn following the land sale.

    And if the additional property taxes collected from a rise in land values on average cancel out the drop in taxes in a downturn, I wonder who will actually benefit more from this whole episode — the State or the developers? One thing is certain: There will be more administrative work for all.

    Executive Condominiums

    Executive Condominiums (ECs), the hybrid public-private housing type originally designed to meet the needs of the sandwiched class, are in the limelight again, this time for the huge profits that owners could potentially reap given the present high resale values.

    That huge profits can be and are being made cannot be denied, but this is because owners are open to greater risks due to their exposure to the private housing market. Who can tell what the market will be like when the first five-year minimum occupation period is fulfilled, or the next five, after which the EC units can be sold to foreigners?

    It was not so many years ago, before the present market up-cycle, that owners of ECs struggled to find buyers and grappled with stagnant resale prices. Let us be clear: It is never a sure-win purchase.

    To put this whole controversy into proper perspective, not many people know that owners of run-down or ill-maintained properties in red-light districts known for their unsavoury night activities are reaping close to a 100 per cent return on their investment if they had bought their properties before the current bull run.

    Is it unreasonable then to expect that prices for resale ECs should show similar, if not greater, returns over the same period?

    We should forget about introducing resale levies and what not to make the scheme more equitable. The permanent solution to the EC conundrum is one that ensures that our housing policies are flexible enough to accommodate all income categories so that there is no sandwiched class in the first place.

    The authorities should ensure that there is sufficient supply in the private housing market to meet demand or else raise the income ceiling for HDB purchases to bring those left behind under the public housing umbrella.

    Tweaking the present EC scheme only treats the symptoms, not the problem itself.

    Colin Tan is Head, Research and Consultancy at Chesterton Suntec International.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    288

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reporter2
    http://www.todayonline.com/business/...nty-developers

    Property

    Court ruling creates uncertainty for developers

    By COLIN TAN
    -
    10 May


    In a landmark ruling last month, the Court of Appeal overturned a High Court decision and affirmed the right of the Chief Assessor to raise the annual land value for the Sail@Marina Bay site from the original S$27 million to S$51.4 million when it was re-assessed to market value in 2009, notwithstanding that pre-sales of units had taken place.

    When the case first surfaced, I was surprised by the action of the tax authorities as the developer Glengary had sold nearly all of its residential units — 1,106 units or some 97 per cent — in 2004 and 2005, and could not possibly benefit much, if at all, from the subsequent sharp rise in land values.

    The move shocked the real estate industry because such an action had never been undertaken before, especially considering that the land was bought from the State, which came with a stipulated fixed time limit for project completion. Thus, any intention to profit from land-banking activities would already have been severely curtailed.

    The tax authorities may have wanted to establish a tax principle as well as set a precedent for future similar action, whether or not benefits have accrued to the developer.

    Whether intended or not, the latest judgment has introduced more uncertainty into the business of property development, which is already a high-risk activity.

    Developers will now have to factor into their tender bids any expected or unexpected significant increases in land value before their targeted project completion dates. In the current case, Glengary has to fork out more than S$2 million in additional taxes. While this amount may be small compared to the value of the project, it can have a significant impact on the developer’s cash flow.

    Having earlier pre-sales and selling out completely within a few months of securing the site is now not without its disadvantages.

    Also, now that a precedent of making the developer liable for increases in land value has been set, it also opens the path — in principle — for developers to apply for a downward revision of assessed land values should there be a sharp property market downturn following the land sale.

    And if the additional property taxes collected from a rise in land values on average cancel out the drop in taxes in a downturn, I wonder who will actually benefit more from this whole episode — the State or the developers? One thing is certain: There will be more administrative work for all.

    Executive Condominiums

    Executive Condominiums (ECs), the hybrid public-private housing type originally designed to meet the needs of the sandwiched class, are in the limelight again, this time for the huge profits that owners could potentially reap given the present high resale values.

    That huge profits can be and are being made cannot be denied, but this is because owners are open to greater risks due to their exposure to the private housing market. Who can tell what the market will be like when the first five-year minimum occupation period is fulfilled, or the next five, after which the EC units can be sold to foreigners?

    It was not so many years ago, before the present market up-cycle, that owners of ECs struggled to find buyers and grappled with stagnant resale prices. Let us be clear: It is never a sure-win purchase.

    To put this whole controversy into proper perspective, not many people know that owners of run-down or ill-maintained properties in red-light districts known for their unsavoury night activities are reaping close to a 100 per cent return on their investment if they had bought their properties before the current bull run.

    Is it unreasonable then to expect that prices for resale ECs should show similar, if not greater, returns over the same period?

    We should forget about introducing resale levies and what not to make the scheme more equitable. The permanent solution to the EC conundrum is one that ensures that our housing policies are flexible enough to accommodate all income categories so that there is no sandwiched class in the first place.

    The authorities should ensure that there is sufficient supply in the private housing market to meet demand or else raise the income ceiling for HDB purchases to bring those left behind under the public housing umbrella.

    Tweaking the present EC scheme only treats the symptoms, not the problem itself.

    Colin Tan is Head, Research and Consultancy at Chesterton Suntec International.
    Lol... Remove the EC scheme will surely remove the problem.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    6,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by flxcat
    Lol... Remove the EC scheme will surely remove the problem.
    since u LOL i LOLL last L is for LOUDER
    In the final analysis.....its NOT whether you have a diploma,degree,masters OR PHD....its whether you have a HDB/PC/EC or LANDED...

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    288

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by radha08
    since u LOL i LOLL last L is for LOUDER
    Pardon me for commenting after reading the article.

    I am increasingly finding Singaporeans had forgotten how to be grateful that their income is way above qualifying to buy BTO.

    As Mr. Ku SY had commented, with an average household income of $150K per annum (I assume excluding employer CPF contribution), why do they need to be subsidised, just because they cannot afford PC, but yet demand to live in a condo lifestyle, hence the need to have EC. Very interesting that the term "live within one's mean" can no where to be found in their vocab.

    Regarding the uncertainties that an EC buyer needs to content with 5yrs and 10yrs down the run when EC can be sold, have the writer conveniently omit the concept of "Make money at the point you buy"? Just wonder aloud on a Friday morning and LOLLLLLLL

Similar Threads

  1. Thye Hong family's 101,550 sq ft GCB site creates buzz in market
    By New Reporter in forum Landed Property
    Replies: 0
    -: 04-09-20, 16:43
  2. Regent Court ruling explained
    By mr funny in forum En Bloc Discussion and News
    Replies: 1
    -: 10-09-10, 01:31
  3. Landmark ruling
    By mr funny in forum En Bloc Discussion and News
    Replies: 2
    -: 22-07-08, 01:03
  4. Court ruling expected to boost certainty in property deals
    By mr funny in forum Finance and Legal
    Replies: 0
    -: 11-10-06, 02:24

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •