Congress Agreed to Pay PILT on a Tax Equivalency Basis Sample Clauses

Congress Agreed to Pay PILT on a Tax Equivalency Basis. The Legislature’s initiative to determine the tax equivalent amount for federal Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) is consistent with numerous federal analyses. Some examples include the following: • According to the Congressional Research Service, when the federal public lands policy shifted in 1976 from one of disposal to one of retention, “Congress agreed with recommendations of the [Public Land Law Review] Commission that if these federal lands were never to become part of the local tax base, some compensation should be offered to local governments (generally counties) to make up for the presence of nontaxable land within their jurisdictions.” (Congressional Research Service (CRS), PILT Somewhat Simplified, October 5, 2017, page 1). • In a report commissioned by the BLM, the United States Forest Service concluded that “PILT held the promise of both stabilizing Federal payments to counties and improving prospects for tax equivalency.” (An Analysis of PILT-Related Payments and Likely Property Tax Liability of Federal Resource Management Lands, USDA General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-36WWW, September 1999, page 1). • The U.S. Government Accountability Office confirms that PILT was meant to “compensate counties by providing payments in lieu of taxes that would have been received by these jurisdictions if the federal lands were privately owned.” (Land Management Agencies Revenue Sharing Payments to States and Counties, U.S. Government Accountability Office, September 1998, page 1). • “[I]t is the obligation of the United States to make certain that the burden of that [federal land retention] policy is spread among all the people of the United States and is not borne only by those states and governments in whose area the lands are located. Therefore, the Federal Government should make payments to compensate state and local governments for the tax immunity of Federal lands.” (A Report to the President and to the Congress by the Public Land Law Review Commission, June 1970). • “A new statutory framework should be enacted to make public lands available for the expansion of existing communities and for the development of new cities and towns…. We believe such a measure would facilitate planning and more orderly urban growth, get public lands needed for development onto the tax rolls more quickly, return a fair value to the U.S. Treasury, and reduce the administrative cost of disposal to the Federal Government.” (A Report to the President and to the Congress by the ...