Is Property Decoupling To Avoid ABSD Now Illegal?

“Sell one, buy two” was such a widely used piece of property advice, I would be shocked if every property agent hasn’t uttered it at least once. And while the practice is less common today, some buyers still definitely do it: transferring the home to just one co-owner (usually a spouse or some other family member), so they’re free to take on an entirely different property. Given that this has been going on since way before COVID, it’s a bit of a shock to some – agents included – that it is, in fact, illegal; if done specifically to avoid the ABSD. But what does that mean? Here’s the lowdown on this head-scratcher: 

How one couple’s legal dispute ended up alarming everyone 

In an odd twist, it’s one couple’s legal battle over a property that brought all this to light recently; and they even broke up before they got to buying another property anyway. 

The couple – unmarried – held their home 99-to-1 in her favour and had plans to decouple, with the boyfriend eventually buying another place ABSD-free. But before the plan could hatch, the relationship collapsed. And whilst the courtroom drama was about how much he should get for the place, that ended up being a side note for many in the industry. 

The big issue is that, during the proceedings, the judge made it very clear: if the plan had gone ahead – and the intent behind it was to dodge ABSD – it would have amounted to tax evasion. 

That one judgment – tacked on to a failed relationship and a property dispute – has now sent a huge wave through the real estate industry. The implication is that every 99 -1 arrangement to avoid ABSD, which we dare say is many of them, is illegal. 

This results in two serious issues:

First, intent is open to interpretation

Owning even one per cent of a property is significant. If you legally own one per cent of a property in Singapore – whether as a tenant in common or joint tenant – you cannot be forcibly “kicked out” by your co-owners as long as your ownership is valid. 

So I might be asked to pay for one per cent of the property for reasons of security – for example, say I’m buying a property with a life partner, who for whatever reason I cannot legally marry. My income is low or limited; so instead of putting money up front, I put in a token one per cent. This is not because I intend to buy a separate property later; it’s simply a surety, so I can’t be kicked out later. 

Now purely as a side-effect, I could also also transfer the one per cent to someone else later on, and then buy another property with no ABSD. But note that this was never the intention.

But fast forward a few years, and I’m earning more; and I decide the best way to be secure is to buy my own place.

 If I then transfer the one per cent, and buy a second property with no ABSD, can it be said that I intended to avoid the ABSD all along? If I’m still living with my life partner at the time, and we’re basically enjoying two properties (one may even end up being rented out,) then it could be argued I’ve performed a kind of tax-dodge; even if it never entered my mind at the time of the 99-1 arrangement.

Second, there is the issue of culpability and fairness

Let’s not pretend most buyers came up with “sell one, buy two” on their own while staring at an IRAS flowchart, then screaming “Darling, I got it! I know how to avoid ABSD!”

“Sell one, buy two” was a widely circulated, frequently encouraged strategy for years. Buyers were told this was how to build a property portfolio. It was in property blogs, in seminars, in WhatsApp groups, etc. The deals were executed, which means conveyancing firms and lawyers were also involved.

And now, suddenly, some of those very same deals are discovered to be a tax crime?

Also, if buyers were advised to proceed by industry professionals, how is it fair to pin all the blame on the buyer? 

Also, if even the experts didn’t seem to have understood all this before, how clear was the law to begin with? Maybe this shouldn’t be seen as a matter of intent, but about a systemic misunderstanding, and it may not be fair to throw previous buyers to the proverbial wolves. 

The immediate impact on the property market

In a way, it’s fortunate that “sell one, buy two” was already dying down when this happened. On the ground, realtors pointed out that – given the higher home prices in 2025 – it’s a much smaller group of couples or families who can afford dual mortgages today. 

That said, realtors did remark that some buyers pulled out of the purchases once the news broke. One realtor noted that, at a recent new launch, a buyer purchasing for their children backed out once the news broke. They wouldn’t have been affected as it was a genuine case of supporting family; but they were too nervous to go ahead anyway.

Another realtor expressed that this could affect the sale of smaller units, in particular one-bedders. This is because the “sell one, buy two” strategy often hinges on buying one larger and one smaller property: one to live in, and the other to rent out. The rental asset is usually a one-bedder; so assuming a knee-jerk reaction from the market, one-bedder sales could be briefly impacted. 

So where does this leave buyers, sellers, and professionals?

At the moment, the safest thing you can do is to tread carefully. If you’re planning a 99-to-1 arrangement or considering decoupling in any form, speak to a legal or tax expert before making any moves. If your intent is clearly to help a family member buy a home, document that and make sure the transaction reflects it. Transparency and proper documentation are now more important than ever.

For professionals like agents, this is likely the final nail in the “sell one, buy two” coffin. The set legal precedent means the language around decoupling is going to change, and no agent wants to risk the possible consequences if it goes wrong. It’s likely that the stock response to decoupling, from now on, is just to say that it’s illegal to decouple just to avoid ABSD. If you still insist on transacting, it’s likely that no one will stop you, but if anything goes wrong, they can shrug and say they did warn you. 

The people most affected by this are the ones counting on support from family to get their mortgage approved. If you need a parent or grandparent as a co-owner, for TDSR purposes, the process may now be a bit more complicated. If you need help with this, reach out to us at Stacked; and follow us for more updates as the situation unfolds.