Ah, yes, the old PILOT concept, as discussed in Rev Rul 71-49
https://www.taxnotes.com/research/feder ... 71-49/d8g8 and also in PLR 200926023
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-wd/0926023.pdf. But does the program meet those tests? Here's part of the CA law.
(b) Prior to giving tentative approval to the cancellation of any contract, the board or council shall determine and certify to the county auditor the amount of the cancellation fee that the landowner shall pay the county treasurer upon cancellation. That fee shall be an amount equal to 121/2 percent of the cancellation valuation of the property.
. I don't see anything about its being a payment in lieu of taxes. It might be one, but I just haven't seen that.
For one thing, the payment can be waived. That wold be unusual for a property tax.
(c) If it finds that it is in the public interest to do so, the board or council may waive any payment or any portion of a payment by the landowner, or may extend the time for making the payment or a portion of the payment contingent upon the future use made of the land and its economic return to the landowner for a period of time not to exceed the unexpired period of the contract, had it not been canceled, if all of the following occur:
And here is how they use the revenue from the cancellation fees.
(d) The first five million dollars ($5,000,000) of revenue paid to the Controller pursuant to subdivision (e) in the 2004–05 fiscal year, and any other amount as approved in the final Budget Act for each fiscal year thereafter, shall be deposited in the Soil Conservation Fund, which is continued in existence. The money in the fund is available, when appropriated by the Legislature, for the support of all of the following:
(1) The cost of the farmlands mapping and monitoring program of the Department of Conservation pursuant to Section 65570.
(2) The soil conservation program identified in Section 614 of the Public Resources Code.
(3) Program support costs of this chapter as administered by the Department of Conservation.
(4) Program support costs incurred by the Department of Conservation in administering the open-space subvention program (Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 16140) of Part 1 of Division 4 of Title 2).
(5) The costs to the Department of Conservation for administering Section 51250.
(6) When available, after funding the duties of the Department of Conservation pursuant to paragraphs (1) through (5), inclusive, program support costs incurred by the department in carrying out the duties of the department pursuant to Sections 65565 and 66565.1.
FWIW, the cited Rev Rul holds
... that the cooperative housing corporation may deduct the payments as real property taxes under §164 because: (1) The payments are measured by and are equal to the amounts imposed by the regular taxing statutes, (2) the payments are imposed by a specific state statute (even though the vehicle of a lease agreement is used), and (3) the proceeds are designated for a public purpose rather than for some privilege, service, or regulatory function, or for some other local benefit tending to increase the value of the property upon which the payments are made.