Site: OntarioTaxSales--Charges BIG fees for Townships to post Pictures {:^(

[netpred]

Here's a bit of a long post.  It addresses a number of issues that have been raised and comments that have been made.

>>>Anyone who has encountered what I will call "interesting dealings" with a small rural municipality knows what I am talking about
>>>What is interesting is that no one including the pro's like Frank and PFM have questioned them about the one situation where I would be worried about them?  (I will also allow OTS Jeff to guess it as well if he wishes)
I'm afraid you've got me on this one.  I haven't got a clue.

>>>If there was no ots another similar company would be there and who knows, they might not have the integrity of ots
Thank you very much.  OTS employs professional people with professional backgrounds and expertise.  OTS has been around since 2005, and Realtax has been around since 1996, and both companies will be around for a long time to come.  We have, and will continue to, conduct ourselves with the highest standards of ethics and integrity.

>>>I would be careful if I was in your shoes in giving out free info to new competitors about how your business operates
I don't think I've given out too much information on this forum.  What I've given out is the bare bones of doing tax registrations and tax sales.  The services that Realtax provides to its clients goes far beyond these bare bones.

>>>Most treasurers follow everything that you say on your website, in emails, bulletins and at seminars. Please make sure that you are correct and not stating opinion.
I sincerely do my best to separate my opinions from fact.  I hope that I've always been successful in this.

>>>I am not sold on the HST issue at all and my information is that CCRA's opinion may not be accurate.
I was hoping that CRA would conclude that tax sales are not taxable.  Sadly, that's no the conclusion they came to.  But it is my duty to let the municipalities that Realtax does business with know about CRA's interpretation.

If some person, or some municipality wished to challenge CRA on this issue, who knows, maybe they would be successful.  But a trip to tax court would likely be quite expensive.  I would guess that the legal fees would easily be in the tens of thousands of dollars, maybe more.  And there's no guarantee of who would win.  And keep in mind, CRA has very deep pockets.  And they have very deep reasons for not wanting to see their interpretation overturned.

>>I know that you talk in your seminars about the practice of double bidding.
That issue has been raised more than once at seminars that I was teaching.  My response to it is to let municipalities know what the ramifications of this situation are.  I try to stick to the legalities; that's what a treasurer needs to know, regardless of the ethics of submitting more than one tender.  To do other wise would be ethically wrong on my part.  It could lead a municipality into a lawsuit that could have been avoided by sticking to the wording of the pertinent legislation and/or Regulation.

>>>Will you advise a municipality what to do if the owner attempts to redeem after the first deposit has been forfeited?
If the municipality is a Realtax client, yes we certainly will advise them.  We advise our clients every step of the way.  

>>>A lawyer who works for a municipality and who has conducted searches on properties would never sell the same searches (perhaps subsearched to update) to the public
And neither would we.  If a property is being advertised for tax sale today, then Realtax would have done a title search more than a year ago.  If someone ordered a search from OntarioTaxSales.ca today, OTS would conduct a search.  It would not use the search that Realtax used over a year ago.  If someone else ordered a search from OTS tomorrow, OTS would again conduct a search.  OTS only uses up-to-date searches.

>>>For example, if a Crown lien comes on after service of the final notice or even after the sale, but before registration of the tax deed
That Crown lien would show up on the search that OTS did, and we would report it to the person who bought that search.  But, we would have no way of knowing about the Crown lien if it were registered anytime after the OTS search was done.  

Jeff Oberman, President
OntarioTaxSales.ca
Realtax

Thanks for the response Jeff:

Just a couple of questions for clarification.

First, when OTS searches properties for members, does it use different title searchers than Real Tax used earlier for the municipality? If not, are you not simply subsearching from the last search? Is there not a conflict? Or are OTS and Real Tax completely arms length with different title searchers and lawyers?

Second, Real Tax is a leader in this field and has advised client municipalities on the HST based on a CCRA opinion. Implicit in your response is an acknowledgement that the CCRA's opinion may be wrong. I acknowledge that it might also be correct. But the Tax Court (if it actually went that far) is the entity that should decide this issue. So, now all municipalities charge HST because of a CCRA opinion. Yes, court has an expense (although I have a competent and ethical lawyer who will do this for under 10k) but I think that Real Tax should be certain of the advice that is provided to municipalities. Is it even a stretch to suggest that as part of the service that Real Tax provides, is a requirement to obtain the correct decision (from the court if necessary) rather than only an opinion?

Third. I still see a potential conflict in selling searches to both sides of a transaction. What does Real Tax tell a municipality to do if OTS searches for a member of OTS that shows a Crown lien registered after the sale but before registration? OTS has armed the purchaser with information that suggests not to close. Does Real tax tell the municipality to not close? Or is the municipality advised of their right to forfeiture of the deposit? Have you even considered whether such a lien is even valid considering it is subsequent in registration to the municipality's interests? You must be very careful not to provide legal advice on such matters - only lawyers can. If you have a lawyer provide this advice, the lawyer must comply with the LSUC's rules of conduct that deal with conflict situations.

I guess my big point is simple - are OTS and Real Tax two completely separate arms length companies that are staffed entirely by different employees, title searchers and lawyers?

You may think that I am a pain in the butt, but these are, in my view, serious issues that I hope that you have addressed when setting up the companies. If you are running two separate companies with each servicing opposing sides of a transaction, I hope that are you keeping everything separate - including management of each. Or, do you actively manage both?

ps - even though I used spell check, I later found some errors for correcting. Likely to find more when I read this again. Sorry.

[netpred]

What exactly are the issues with running two companies and staffing both with the same specialists?
I understand the services these companies offer but where is the flaw?

Why not manage both companies? how is that in anyway a conflict at all?

please explain a little more, im very curious as to the suggestions that have recently been made.

enlighten me...

Jtown.

In most cases there is nothing wrong with companies cross-staffing. However, when one (Real Tax) provides services and advice to a seller, while another (OTS) provides services and advice to the purchaser on the same transaction, ... well you figure it out.

[Dave2]

So, I can't possibly imagine what I might have missed. Tell me, the suspense is killing me.

Netpred:  

Frank being the first gets the best prize because that's the way it is in life.  I guess I will have to drive over to his home stomping grounds and deliver it.  Knowing his home town from an earlier phase in life; though rather then a coffee joint like Starbucks I might suggest something like "Hutch(e?)s on the beach" in season as one that is more in that region's neighbourhood style.  We might even be able to pick up some accessories for PFM's boat.  although that has its own set of risks as my voice pitch would be probably several octaves higher after my wife got through with me. 

The condition I will add for you or anyone else on this board (including OTS Jeff) as second or later place is I will be happy to mention or confirm it whatever; but ONLY in person. In your case we are overdue for a face-to-face anyways to compare notes as you are obviously smarter then me in some aspects of this crazy business.  I will PM you with a suggestion.  

[Frank]

Netpred...I found my earlier posting on the subject.   This is my good deed for the day...save your money.   However, if you do decide to proceed, I hope you win.

Firstly, I requested an answer from Revenue Canada and got a long winded dissertation, the meat of which is as follows:

'It is the Agency's position that a supply, by way of a sale, occurs at the time of an action sale pursuant to the definitions of supply and sale in subsection 123(1).

It is also the Agency's position that under subsection 183(10), a sale by a municipality of a previous owner's property is a deemed seizure, or repossession, and the municipality is the deemed supplier.

As a result, pursuant to subsection 183(1) the municipality is deemed to have purchased the property, and the previous owner is deemed to have sold the property for nil consideration at the time of the auction sale.

Accordingly, as the action sale is a supply for GST purposes, and as the municipality is the deemed supplier, the sale by the municipality will be taxable unless the supply is exempt under the provisions of Schedule V of the ETA.

On May 14, 2004 the ETA was amended and municipalities are now entitled to a 100% rebate of GST and the federal portion of HST.  As part of the amendments, changes were made to exclude municipalities from the general exemption for supplies of real property made by public service bodies.

As a result, supplies of real property by a municipality that were formerly exempt under section 25 of Part VI of Schedule V are now taxable.

However, supplies of real property made by municipalities for residential use (e.g., a home) may still be exempt under sections 2 to 8.1 of Part I of Schedule V."


A bit long winded, but in a nutshell it means that in most circumstances tax sale properties are now subject to GST - even though they might otherwise not be, you should consider that when you make your bid. 

The problem is that many municipalities have not caught on yet and are not collecting it as an extra on closing, nor are they making any mention of it in their ads.  My position is that if they didn't say that it would be extra, then they are really saying that it is included in the price, and therefore if Revenue Canada does an audit they will be forced to pay up. 

There is also a ruling regarding a quebec situation (on the Rev. Canada web-site) which also indicates that there is GST involved.   Go to

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/gl/p-198/p-198-e.html....I've copied the text below, in case you can't open it:

GST POLICY STATEMENTS Please note that the following Policy Statement, although correct at the time of issue, may not have been updated to reflect any subsequent legislative changes.

P-198 UNPAID MUNICIPAL TAXES AND REDEMPTION BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER

Date of Issue

January 11, 1996

Subject

Sale by a municipality of the property of a taxpayer who is in default on the municipal taxes payment in the province of Qu?bec, and redemption of the property by the taxpayer at a later date.

Legislative Reference(s)

Sections 165, 183, 193, 232, 257, 261 and the definitions of "supply" and "sale" in subsection 123(1) of the Excise Tax Act (ETA)

The Qu?bec Municipal Code, the Cities and Towns Act (Qu?bec) and the Qu?bec Civil Code

National Coding System File Number(s)

11585-35; 11950-1; 11890-1; 11783/2 subsection 123(1)

Effective Date

January 1, 1991

Text

Issue and Decision:

The issues discussed in this policy statement are:

1) the application of the GST to sales of property for unpaid municipal taxes by municipalities located in Qu?bec

2) the application of section 183 of the ETA to such sales by municipalities, and

3) the application of the GST in circumstances where there is a redemption of the property by the previous owner subsequent to that sale.

A sale of property for unpaid municipal taxes is a recourse available to municipalities throughout the country in order to recover the unpaid municipal taxes.

In the province of Qu?bec, such a power is given to a municipality by virtue of the Qu?bec Municipal Code, the Cities and Towns Act (Qu?bec), or for a large city such as Montr?al or Qu?bec by virtue of its charter. These laws in Qu?bec also allow the taxpayer to regain ownership of the property within a specified time period following the sale of the property.

Generally a municipality will sell the property at an auction sale, and the buyer (hereinafter referred to as the auction purchaser) will acquire clear title to the property at the time of the auction sale. However, in Qu?bec the auction purchaser does not obtain clear title to the property but obtains a precarious one, due to the fact that the taxpayer (hereinafter referred to as previous owner) has the right to redeem the property after the auction sale.

Where the previous owner exercises the right to redeem the property within the prescribed time period (i.e. one year), under Qu?bec municipal legislation, the redemption has the effect of restoring ownership of the property to the previous owner as of the date of the auction sale.

In some provinces (e.g. Ontario), it is noted that the previous owner may not be able to regain ownership of the property as the municipal laws generally do not provide the right to redeem the property within a prescribed time period.

Thus as stated above, because there in Qu?bec is a possibility that the previous owner will redeem the property within a prescribed time period following the auction sale and because of the effect of the redemption, the issue is whether in that province the auction sale can be considered a supply for GST purposes.

Furthermore when the property is redeemed, the issue is whether a supply occurs for GST purposes.

It is the Department's position that a supply by way of sale occurs at the time of the auction sale pursuant to the definitions of supply and sale in subsection 123(1) of the Excise Tax Act.

It is also the Department's position that under subsection 183(10), the sale by the municipality of the previous owner's property is a deemed seizure or repossession and that the municipality is the deemed supplier. As a result, pursuant to subsection 183(1) the municipality is deemed to have purchased the property and the previous owner is deemed to have sold the property for nil consideration at the time of the auction sale.

Accordingly, as the auction sale is a supply for GST purposes and as the municipality is the deemed supplier, the sale by the municipality will be taxable unless the supply is exempt under the provisions of Schedule V of the ETA. Note that most supplies of real property made by a public service body such as a municipality are exempt under section 25 of Part VI of Schedule 5 of the ETA unless they are excluded from the exemption provisions by paragraphs 25(a) to (h).

Moreover, since the auction sale by the municipality is deemed to be a seizure or repossession under section 183 and because of paragraphs 183(1)(c) and (d), the previous owner may be entitled to claim an input tax credit under section 193 or a rebate under section 257 for the previously non-creditable or non-rebatable tax paid in respect of the property if the deemed supply between the previous owner (the supply that is deemed to have been made for nil consideration under paragraph 183(1)(a)) and the municipality is taxable or if it is exempt under section 9 of Part I, or section 25 of Part VI, of Schedule V.

Finally, it is the Department's position that the redemption by the previous owner of the property sold for unpaid municipal taxes is also a supply by way of sale by the auction purchaser to the previous owner pursuant to subsection 123(1) of the ETA. Accordingly, the supply of the property by the auction purchaser may also be subject to the GST.

Since the auction purchaser is making a supply by way of a sale, for GST purposes, to the previous owner, the auction purchaser may also be entitled to claim an input tax credit under section 193 or a rebate under section 257 for the previously non-creditable or non-rebatable tax paid in respect of the property if the supply is taxable.


Top of PageSAMPLE RULINGS
EXAMPLE 1
Statement of Facts

In Qu?bec, Mr. A the owner of a parcel of vacant land has defaulted on his municipal taxes payments for the last 5 years. The municipality, after numerous warnings to Mr. A, has decided to sell the property for unpaid taxes and, starts the necessary procedures. Mr. A does not correct the default and the municipality sells the property at an auction on June 1, 1993. The auction purchaser, Mr. B, acquires the property for personal purposes (i.e. otherwise than in the course of a business or in an adventure or concern in the nature of trade), for consideration equal to $ 50,000 plus GST of $ 3,500.

Under the Qu?bec Municipal Code, Mr. A has a right to redeem the property within the year following the day of the auction sale, by paying to the purchaser Mr. B the price paid on the land by Mr. B at auction with interest. On February 1, 1994, Mr. A redeems the property by paying Mr. B $ 53,500 (consideration plus the related GST) plus interest.

Rulings Requested

1) Confirmation that the auction sale of the land by the municipality is a supply for GST purposes even if the previous owner, Mr. A, has a right to redeem the land in the next year.

2) Confirmation of whether the provisions of section 183 of the ETA apply when the municipality sells Mr. A's property and if so, whether Mr. A may claim an ITC or a rebate pursuant to subsections 193(1) or 257(1) of the ETA respectively.

3) Finally, confirmation of whether the auction purchaser, Mr. B, is making a supply of the property to the previous owner, Mr. A, when the latter redeems the property.

Rulings Given

The sale by the municipality of Mr. A's land is a supply by way of a sale for GST purposes which is taxable as it is excluded by paragraph 25(c) of Part VI of Schedule V from the exemption provisions. Therefore, Mr. B will have to pay GST equal to $ 3,500 on the purchase of the land, for a total price of $ 53,500.

Furthermore, pursuant to subsection 183(10) of the ETA, the sale of Mr. A's land by the municipality is deemed to be a seizure and the municipality is deemed to be the supplier of Mr. A's land to Mr. B. Thus pursuant to subsection 183(1), the municipality is deemed to have purchased from Mr. A and Mr. A is deemed to have sold to the municipality the land for nil consideration. As a result, because of the provisions of paragraphs 183(1)(c) and (d), Mr. A will be able to claim an input tax credit under subsection 193(1) or a rebate under subsection 257(1) for the non-creditable or non-rebatable tax paid in respect of the property.

When Mr. A redeems the land on February 1, 1994, a supply by way of a sale by Mr. B to Mr. A occurs for GST purposes. Mr. B is considered to be selling the land back to Mr. A for $ 53,500 plus interest. However, the sale by Mr. B will be exempt under section 9 of Part I of Schedule V and as a result, Mr. A will not pay GST when he redeems the land.

Because the sale by Mr. B to Mr. A is exempt, Mr. B will not be able to claim an input tax credit under subsection 193(1) or a rebate under subsection 257(1) for the non-creditable or the non-rebatable tax paid in respect of the property. However, because the Qu?bec Municipal Code can be interpreted as requiring Mr. A, when redeeming, to reimburse Mr. B the price paid for the property at auction (including the GST), Mr. B's tax cost will be nil.

This ruling is subject to the general limitations and qualifications set out in GST Memoranda Series (1.4). We are bound by this ruling provided that none of the above issues is currently under audit, objection or appeal, that there are no relevant changes in the future to the Excise Tax Act and that you have fully described all necessary facts and transactions for which you requested a ruling.


Top of PageEXAMPLE 2
Statement of Facts

In Qu?bec, Co. A a GST registrant and owner of a parcel of vacant land has defaulted on its municipal tax payments for the last 5 years. The municipality after numerous warnings to Co. A, has decided to sell the property for unpaid taxes and starts the necessary procedures. Co. A does not correct the default and the municipality sells the property at an auction on July 13, 1993. The auction purchaser, Mr. B who is a registrant, acquires the property for resale in the course of his business, for consideration equal to $ 100,000 plus GST of $ 7,000.

Under the Qu?bec Municipal Code, Co. A has a right to redeem the property within the year following the day of the auction sale, by paying to the purchaser, Mr. B, the price paid by Mr. B for the land at the auction with interest. On April 15, 1994, Co. A redeems the property.

Rulings Requested

1) Confirmation that the auction sale of the land by the municipality is a supply for GST purposes even if the previous owner, Co. A, has a right to redeem the land in the next year.

2) Confirmation of whether the provisions of section 183 of the ETA apply when the municipality sells Co. A's property and if so, whether Co. A may claim an ITC or a rebate pursuant to subsections 193(3) or 257(1) of the ETA respectively.

3) Finally, confirmation of whether the auction purchaser, Mr. B, is making a supply of the property to the previous owner, Co. A, when the latter redeems the property.

Rulings Given

The sale by the municipality of Co. A's land is a supply by way of a sale for GST purposes and such a sale will be taxable as it is excluded from the exemption provisions by paragraph 25(c) of Part VI of Schedule V. Therefore, Mr. B will have to pay GST equal to $ 7,000 on the purchase of the land.

Pursuant to subsection 183(10), the sale of Co. A's land by the municipality is deemed to be a seizure and the municipality is deemed to be the supplier of Co. A's land to Mr. B. Accordingly, pursuant to subsection 183(1) the municipality is deemed to have purchased from Co. A and Co. A is deemed to have sold to the municipality the land for nil consideration. Thus, because the sale between Co. A and the municipality is taxable and because of paragraph 183(1)(c), Co. A will be able to claim an input tax credit under subsection 193(1) for the non-creditable tax paid in respect of the property.

When Co. A redeems the land on April 15, 1994, a supply by way of a sale by Mr. B to Co. A also occurs for GST purposes.
Mr. B is considered to be selling the land back to Co. A for $ 100,000 plus interest. The supply by Mr. B to Co. A will be taxable as it is excluded from the exemption provisions by paragraph 9(b) of Part I of Schedule V.

Mr. B, a registrant, will also be able to claim an input tax credit under subsection 193(1) for any tax paid in respect of the property for which he was not able to claim an input tax credit.

This ruling is subject to the general limitations and qualifications set out in GST Memoranda Series (1.4). We are bound by this ruling provided that none of the above issues is currently under audit, objection or appeal, that there are no relevant changes in the future to the Excise Tax Act and that you have fully described all necessary facts and transactions for which you requested a ruling.




http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/gl/p-198/p-198-e.htm

[Frank]

Maybe I can't read, but I don't see any contradiction. 

The book that you have cited says that Municipalities conducting a tax sale have been deemed to have seized the property...and taken ownership at $0.  The resale of it, or if the Municipality opts to use the property for its own use is subject to HST as part of the municipalities commercial activities.  Unless the purchaser has an exemption certificate, or the property is used residential, then it is taxable, ----  according to this senior partner of PriceWaterhouse Coopers LLB. 

heres a link to something i found, though im not sure if it is of any use at all as its just another contradiction.

[OTS Jeff]

>>>The only thing that I have not raised is the possibility of someone affiliated with OTS or Real Tax`bidding on tax sale properties.
For the record, I have never bought a tax sale property, nor have I ever submitted a tender or bid on a tax sale property.  Nor have I ever in any way participated in the purchase, or attempt to purchase, a tax sale property; not through a third party, or through a numbered company, or in any other way.  Also, my companies' employment contracts all contain a clause that forbids the employee from buying a tax sale property, or in participating in an attempt to buy a tax sale property, anywhere in Ontario.

>>>First, when OTS searches properties for members, does it use different title searchers than Real Tax used earlier for the municipality? If not, are you not simply subsearching from the last search? Is there not a conflict? Or are OTS and Real Tax completely arms length with different title searchers and lawyers?
OTS has it's own title searcher, Dave.  He has been searching titles for more than 20 years.  Dave is also a Survey Technologist.  He worked in the Parcel Mapping department at the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation as a Drafter/Geographic Information Systems Specialist for 16 years.  Dave is also a graduate of the Municipal Tax Administration Program from Seneca College. 

Dave does not do any title searching for Realtax.  Realtax also has it's own title searchers.  Between them, the Realtax title searchers have more than 100 years of experience in title searching.  When the OTS title searcher is on vacation, one of the Realtax title searchers fills in for him.

Also, please be aware that not every municipality that uses OTS is a Realtax client.  OTS is available to every municipality in Ontario, regardless of who is handling their tax sales. 

Neither Realtax nor OTS has a lawyer on staff.  We do utilize the services of a lawyer when we need to.  Our lawyer is well-versed in tax sales and has done a great deal of research on tax sale-related matters.

As I previously stated, when someone orders a search from OTS, we conduct a new search for that person.  So no, we are not subsearching from the last search.

And no, there is not conflict.  A title search states facts.  The Title Search Summaries that we prepare also state facts.  The facts are the same, regardless of who the facts are being supplied to.

And for the record, Realtax Inc. and OTS are separate corporations, and they carry separate insurance policies.  Realtax has been in business since 1996, and OTS since 2005.  There has never been a claim on the insurance of either company.

>>> I think that Real Tax should be certain of the advice that is provided to municipalities. Is it even a stretch to suggest that as part of the service that Real Tax provides, is a requirement to obtain the correct decision (from the court if necessary) rather than only an opinion?
The advice that we provide to municipalities on this matter is, "We have obtained an Interpretation from CRA and here's what it says...".  And no, there is no requirement for Realtax to go to court to obtain a "correct decision". 

>>>What does Real Tax tell a municipality to do if OTS searches for a member of OTS that shows a Crown lien registered after the sale but before registration?
Realtax has assisted municipalities with over 1,500 tax sales, and we have never seen this happen.  Also, OTS has never had a member request that a title search be done after the sale. 
In the event that this did happen, we would advise the municipality what their options are.  That is, either proceed with the tax sale, or cancel the tax sale.  It would be up to the Treasurer of the municipality to decide what to do.

A few years ago Realtax encountered a vaguely similar situation.  After a municipality began tax sale procedures, the region  expropriated a large portion of the land in question.  In that case, the municipality cancelled the tax sale.

>>>If myself or a member of this board wishes at any time to hire your organization for a consulting assignment that would not put you in a conflict of interest with your other clients is that possible? 

We've never been hired for a consulting assignment.  That doesn't mean that we wouldn't consider it, but first I would have to know the nature of the assignment.  If it put us in a conflict position, we would decline the assignment.

>>>I for one appreciate your informed responses, and as a newbie, am soaking up a lot of information...

Pardon me for possibly blowing my own horn, but if you want to learn a tremendous amount about tax sales, there is an extremely helpful resource available to you, free of charge.  Just go to OntarioTaxSales.ca, and click on HOW TO BUY TAX SALE PROPERTIES. If you read through all of it, you'll know more about tax sales than the vast majority of people in Ontario.

Best regards,
Jeff Oberman, President
OntarioTaxSales.ca
Realtax Inc.

[Dave2]

>>>If myself or a member of this board wishes at any time to hire your organization for a consulting assignment that would not put you in a conflict of interest with your other clients is that possible?  

We've never been hired for a consulting assignment.  That doesn't mean that we wouldn't consider it, but first I would have to know the nature of the assignment.  If it put us in a conflict position, we would decline the assignment.

Best regards,
Jeff Oberman, President
OntarioTaxSales.ca
Realtax Inc.

Jeff:

I was the source of the question about the consulting assignment.   I have highlighted a section of of my original question in red to stress it was not my intent to put you in a conflict of interest. 

The reason for the consulting assignment question was based on my own personal experiences and the concerns of others because I think we have to start looking at tax sales in a different light.  Every one on here is hoping for the big score.  But like gambling while it does happen I think it is rarer then people realize. (There are also some very smart people both on and off this board who beat me more often then I like)

I have likened it to Placer gold mining with a lot of sand and muck and the occasional gold nugget.  Because of the competion; I want to try a different approach to in effect see if I can make some money off of the much.  That is where you might come in but obviously I going to go private on the details. 

[Ronster]

Thanks Jeff, I already have been there and read all that you have...between this site and yours I have learned to avoid some pitfalls, and gained an appreciation for the wide range of different issues to consider before even bidding.

>>>I for one appreciate your informed responses, and as a newbie, am soaking up a lot of information...

Pardon me for possibly blowing my own horn, but if you want to learn a tremendous amount about tax sales, there is an extremely helpful resource available to you, free of charge.  Just go to OntarioTaxSales.ca, and click on HOW TO BUY TAX SALE PROPERTIES. If you read through all of it, you'll know more about tax sales than the vast majority of people in Ontario.

Best regards,
Jeff Oberman, President
OntarioTaxSales.ca
Realtax Inc.