Scotland’s LBTT was introduced by the Scottish Government in April 2015, marking a divergence from the UK’s Stamp Duty regime.

“The nation’s LBTT bill that month was just £7 million,” said Rettie. “By contrast, eleven years later, in April 2026, this bill had climbed to nearly £56 million.

“Around 70% of sales are over the £145,000 threshold, meaning the vast majority of Scottish house buyers can expect an LBTT bill.

“In 2025/26, Residential LBTT revenue reached a record high in Scotland of c.£760 million, driven by a small increase in house sales and rising prices.”

Rettie’s Director of Research & Strategy John Boyle said: “Residential LBTT continues to be an effective revenue source for the Scottish Government, pushing towards £800 million per year, around four times the level when it was first introduced.

“The tax continues to be dependent on certain geographies, notably Edinburgh, and on the small proportion of sales over £750,000 (1%), which generate around 22% of revenues.”

Rettie said revenue generated by the Additional Dwelling Supplement (ADS) on second homes — including buy to let purchases — now accounts for 33% of Residential LBTT revenue.

Rettie added: “LBTT has become a central feature of Scotland’s property market, with revenues now at record levels. Rising house prices and unadjusted thresholds have steadily brought more buyers into scope, while the Additional Dwelling Supplement has grown into a significant driver of receipts.

“Revenues are reliant on a small share of high-value transactions, particularly in Edinburgh and Glasgow, which underlines both the strength and vulnerability of the current tax base.

“Looking ahead, policy discussions around property taxation at the UK level, and the potential for reform in Scotland, will be important to monitor. As we often argue, the Scottish Government should undertake a behavioural analysis of people’s responses to taxation, particularly LBTT, to optimise the tax take while also not depressing the market.

“As the revenues keep rising, it probably believes there is no need to do so, but this is a tax take that rests on small supporting pillars …”