I have seen these guidelines before and also some posts on AAM, where LPT was apportioned between vendor and purchaser, even where the purchaser was exempt.
This is contrary to the Law Society’s Guidelines:
“Section 127 of the 2012 act provides that any unpaid LPT and any penalties and accrued interest shall remain a charge on the property to which it relates. This statutory obligation on the vendor does not mean that the amount of the LPT already paid by the vendor cannot be apportioned between the vendor and the purchaser at closing. It is the view of the committee that this should be done, except where an exemption from LPT applies.”
and
“Where an exemption from LPT applies and the LPT will, therefore, either not arise (that is, new properties) or will not be apportioned between the parties (for example, purchaser is a first-time buyer), evidence of entitlement to the exemption should be furnished by the relevant party, if necessary in the form of a statutory declaration.”
[Emphasis mine]