Land and buildings transaction tax

FORTHCOMING CHANGE: The Scottish government is conducting a review of LBTT that commenced in spring 2025. Particular areas of focus include the use of non-residential rates for ‘mixed’ transactions, multiple dwellings relief, the 6+ exemption from the additional dwellings supplement, first time buyer relief, the three-yearly lease review returns, and whether something can usefully be done to tie LBTT rates to net zero goals. No change is expected until after the Scottish Parliament elections (which are likely to be held in 2026). It is also considering introducing LBTT reliefs in respect of Co-ownership Authorised Contractual Schemes (CoACS), Property Authorised Investment Funds (PAIFs) and Reserved Investor Funds (RIFs); a consultation document was published on 11 July 2025. For more information, see Practice Note: Scotland: Land and buildings transaction tax (LBTT)—particular transactions and taxpayers—OEICS (including PAIFs), CoACSs and RIFs.

Background to LBTT

Land and buildings transaction tax (LBTT) is a Scottish devolved tax.

Under the provisions of the Land and Buildings Transaction Tax (Scotland) Act 2013 and related secondary legislation, LBTT has applied to Scottish land transactions, ie to the acquisition of chargeable

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Property News

Occupiers’ liability and the threshold test for duty of care (Lillystone v Bradgate)

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: Upon appeal, the High Court found that a claimant casual footballer paying to play a ‘knockabout’ game at school premises where there were no arrangements in place to retrieve a ball kicked out of play into another part of the defendant’s sports facilities (adjacent sports playing fields) caused his own injury when he climbed a 2.1m gate and severely lacerated his hand. The claimant was a trespasser while climbing the gate between two adjacent parts of the premises where he was not a trespasser. The defendant’s duty of care did not extend to providing any system or facilities to aid ball retrievable, despite the trial judge’s findings that doing nothing and waiting was ‘not what football players would do’. The threshold test imposing a duty of care was not met because the claimant decided to climb the locked gate to gain access to adjacent playing fields. What amounts to ‘reasonable’ safety of visitors under section 2(2) and (5) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 (OLA 1957) appears to fall firmly within the characteristics equating to a definition of ‘reasonable’ amounting to ‘adequate’, rather than equating to the dictionary definition of reasonable ‘based on or using good judgment and therefore fair and practical’. On the facts and circumstances of this case the sports premises were safe, despite there being no facility for ball retrieval. The danger to the claimant only arose because the claimant decided to take a risk to climb a gate that was an obvious danger. Written by Abigail Holt, barrister at Garden Court Chambers.

View Property by content type :

Popular documents