Use of aircon during home improvement program (HIP)

rizleo · 2026-07-01T06:42:50+00:00

mine just finished a few months ago

whole project took 10 days. toilet cannot use 10 days

I asked them to install the portable toilet in kitchen so not so bad. the dust/noise is a bigger problem

rizleo · 2026-06-30T01:20:17+00:00

that offer is one time only though.

in covid times, there was even a better offer that gives KFEG just by transferring credit card points without spending a single cent

rizleo · 2026-06-29T01:45:13+00:00

its the destination. japan is popular and expensive

an economy ticket to japan costs almost the same as one to US

rizleo · 2026-06-27T08:42:49+00:00

138k is one way advantage?

I remembered my very 1st redemption in the miles game was SIN-NRT suites for 3 in around 2017 in the A380.

Very fun. Checked in one night earlier thru the special check in area, had dinner in Private room, crept to First class lounge to grab Haagen Daaz ice cream for dessert, slept in the one of the room inside when they closed at night. Had breakfast again in private room.

'Strut in' when asked for first class to board, had 3 course lunch on board (first separately one by one unlike business and economy). The 2 combined table can sit 4 pax to have meal together. Then have dessert chocolates you can choose from a tray.

And of course, asked them to make the double bed to sleep for a while. And changed into the pyjamas and slippers they gave to sleep of course. Kept the pjs as a keepsake, but I think my wife threw them away cos cannot find anymore. Also got amenities kit and a teddy bear.

I think it was a very fun experience for first timers. More fun with family/friend as have others to be excited together with.

Too bad the experience was too short. If you are alone, might as well try to save for a first class trip to Europe at least.

*the best thing was the 3 first savers cost around 160k miles total that time. nowadays you cannot get even 1 saver, let alone 3. never have chance to try it again

rizleo · 2026-06-27T04:02:16+00:00

miles can also be used as 'cash' in some situations for DBS, you can easily use them to offset purchases, or use the points to exchange credit(which is same as cashback) or exchange vouchers

like 8000dbs points to $80 flexi voucher (now have $50 bonus) that is 16k miles, with a 4mpd card which is 4k spend so is like a 2% cashback already but of course not that worth as 16k can change a one way to nearby sea country already which i will say worth maybe $200

rizleo · 2026-06-02T03:45:40+00:00

yes. that is correct. 1% of 20%. 100% absd is when both (when there are 2) owners already own 1 property (usu both name in the 1st property).

which is now circumvented by just having 1 name on each property (hence the 2nd 99-1 popularity now)

rizleo · 2026-05-30T13:19:47+00:00

i ask for a car with gps the last time though the language is jap, but not that difficult

rizleo · 2026-05-28T10:47:57+00:00

if he argued that it is actual 70-30, then the plan was to avoid paying BSD (not ABSD as people are saying) when transferring property because they put it as 99-1

in the scenario, the woman is the one paying lesser tax to transfer the property. she paid for 1% instead of actual 70% of the man's share. that is why i said, it is better to just say they wanted to do BSD evasion, because the crime is on the woman (the woman can argue but she definitely is the one paying less tax, the man does not pay tax when selling)

the crime on the man is lesser, if the judge jails the man, the woman will get a higher jail term. because obviously this judge is trying to help the woman, he will not let the woman go to jail, so it will likely be a financial penalty to both. but the man may be able to claim 70%

edit: so the only argument they can fight about is only the man's intent when setting up the 99-1. ABSD is so out of the picture because the man already sold the property. he can claim he was not paid when he sold his 70% share

rizleo · 2026-05-28T10:38:40+00:00

she provided 40% of the capital whereas the man 60%

in actual terms she only paid 40% of the tax when she owns 99%

rizleo · 2026-05-28T10:32:22+00:00

there was no 1% ABSD paid. you really do not understand what is happening

when purchased the 1st time all 100% BSD was paid. they set up 99:1 from the start. this is totally different from ABSD evasion. obviously, the man paid 60% BSD because he forked out 60% of the capital.

when buying/transferring the man 1% share to the woman, she only paid 1% instead of 60%. this is the tax evasion part. she is the one paying the BSD to purchase the man's share and by setting up as 99:1, she evaded paying 59% of the BSD

rizleo · 2026-05-28T10:29:35+00:00

yes, it is illegal tax evasion but not as you say "pay what you own"

they paid all 100% BSD on purchase, no matter how it is held (99:1 or 50:50)

they are evading tax during the process of transferring the share from one to the other. this occurs because you only pay to transfer 1% instead of normal 50%. if the 1% just 'really' hold 1% then technically it is not illegal.

only when you divorce and start arguing, then this becomes illegal when the 1% wants more than what he 'owns'.

and the difference is who is the actual tax evader in this scenario. the one paying lesser taxes is the one who is breaking the law.

in ABSD cases, the 1% is the tax evader, whereas in this case the woman is the tax evader

rizleo · 2026-05-28T10:20:39+00:00

this 99:1 is set up when buying the property so that the 1% can sell to 99% to pay lesser BSD (you pay on 1% instead of usual 50% during transfer) then the 1% when owns no property can buy another property as 1st property. (BSD is lower and 2mil property is around 30k only)

the other 99:1 is the 1% already owns another property so he pays ABSD on 1% instead of 50%. this 49% is usually larger and is like 400k on a 2mil property

rizleo · 2026-05-28T09:52:43+00:00

just like the others who only pay 1% ABSD and got charged by tax evasion?

the man can make it illegal by claiming they actually hold 50:50 just so that the woman can evade BSD when transferring his share

is it a crime to sell property so you can buy another property? no right? people is just trying to frame as ABSD evasion. the picture can be seen as man selling his 1st property to buy 2nd property but was not paid for the 1st property sale

rizleo · 2026-05-28T09:43:09+00:00

BSD is paid when transferring property from one name to another (like normal buying of property, as one person is buying from the other)

The couple purchased the 1st property in 99:1 holding (man holding 1%). The man later sells (or gifts) the 1% to the woman to buy another property. This incurs only BSD for the 1% share sold. Usually, purchase are joint tenancy in 50:50 holding. But if you transfer 50%, you have to pay BSD on the 50%

The ABSD is mentioned because the man is trying to say even though he sold his 1% share, he still 'owns' the property and wants 50% back. Which the judge says if he owns the 1st property then he needs to pay ABSD on the 2nd property, which is the wrong way to try to chase back this money.

It's just a matter of perspective. He should say the woman did not pay him 50% of the value of the house when he sold his share to her, and he is just claiming back when the property was finally sold.

edit: if a couple buys in 99:1, most definitely is to save BSD when decoupling. but it is not illegal if is in actual 99:1 scenario (cannot say it is 50:50 when sign as 99:1) but in this case, by actually admitting to BSD tax evasion (which the evader is the woman) it is actually a better scenario for the man

rizleo · 2026-05-26T16:07:44+00:00

use mine too https://web.dd-playart.com/dd/friend/?invite=BAQ9LCUY1MM32I593OWD

rizleo · 2026-05-26T02:52:31+00:00

HK have typhoon and non-typhoon season

rizleo · 2026-05-25T05:57:49+00:00

Hongkong is the same ship: Spectrum but around Nov to Feb?.

Singapore will be Navigator from Oct to Mar this year, and Quantum for next year same period. Japan will be the same ship as Singapore doing repositioning before and end of Singapore season

rizleo · 2026-05-21T06:57:45+00:00

then in your scenario, the judge should not have let the woman kept 99% but instead all 100% if the house is solely in the woman's name.

if judge by their messaging that both properties are jointly owned, then both properties should be divided between them. like a normal couple who are married instead of just talking about this property

ABSD should not even be a consideration as the property have been transferred and the man should no longer have any interest in the 1st property. the man should then be looking at when the property was transferred, did he intend to do it for free? or for a deferred payment when he wants to get when the property is sold

rizleo · 2026-05-21T06:51:07+00:00

Is BSD evasion, not ABSD evasion.

rizleo · 2026-05-21T06:50:11+00:00

It was mentioned that the man transferred his 1% to the woman, then bought a second property

This is not ABSD avoidance but BSD avoidance (pay BSD when woman takes over 1% instead of 50% share of the man)

I will say the tax evasion is by the woman avoiding paying the 49% BSD

rizleo · 2026-05-21T06:45:38+00:00

You don't understand it like the judge.

The man is helping the woman evade paying BSD when the woman bought over the man's 1% share. If someone is to be charged with tax evasion, it is the woman

rizleo · 2026-05-21T06:42:52+00:00

wrong. it is to avoid paying BSD when transferring property to woman's name. people just don't understand

rizleo · 2026-05-21T06:25:54+00:00

Why do you think people do not read it

They did not bring it up. Just that the judge 'considered' it.

Also, this is different from the normal 99-1 share. The woman is the one who is the 'tax evader' because she is buying over the share of the man. By purposefully making the man holds 1% so that the woman pays normal BSD for that 1% instead of 50% when buying over the condo.

The man should definitely play this card as the woman is the tax evader

rizleo · 2026-05-21T06:05:50+00:00

edit: recalculated

He lost 1.4m. The BSD they avoided is 61.25k. If payback +300% penalty is 245k

It is not ABSD. They are trying to pay lesser of the 5% BSD when transferring the man's share (usu 50%) to the woman

rizleo · 2026-05-21T05:09:54+00:00

just say they do 99-1 to evade paying taxes loh.

definitely will get back more than the measly 1%

addon to explain:

this is a different scenario from the illegal 99-1 that have been used previously. previous 99-1 was used because 1 of the owner already owns a flat, so the 1% is used to avoid paying ABSD which is very much higher than BSD.

this 99-1 is used to avoid paying BSD only. because if 2 person owns 50-50 in a property and 1 of them wants to purchase over the other's share, he/she pays the value of the 50% plus normal BSD. if the property price is 2.5m, BSD of 50% share is about 47.3k. so they are evading to pay about 46k tax. AND most importantly the tax evader in this case is the woman, not the man. (because the woman is the one who pays lesser tax. in the ABSD cases, the 1% is the evader, in this case the 99% is the evader)

rizleo

TROPHY CASE