Embodiments of the present invention are directed to methods, systems and articles of manufacture for using one or more predictive models for tailoring and personalizing the user experience in preparing an electronic tax return using a tax return preparation application. Although the present invention is described in the context of a tax return preparation system and tax return preparation software application having some specific components, features, functionality and methods for a tax return preparation system, the invention is not limited to a system and/or application having all of such specific components, features, functionality and methods, but only requires that the system and application have sufficient elements and functionality to prepare an electronic tax return.
The embodiments of the present invention may be implemented on and/or within a tax return preparation system comprising a tax preparation software application executing on a computing device. The tax return preparation system may operate on a new construct in which tax rules and the calculations based thereon are established in declarative data-structures, namely, completeness graph(s) and tax calculation graph(s). Use of these data-structures permits the user interface to be loosely connected or even divorced from the tax calculation engine and the data used in the tax calculations. Tax calculations may be dynamically calculated based on tax-related data that is input from a user, derived from sourced data, or estimated. A smart tax logic agent running on a set of rules can review current run time data and evaluate missing tax data necessary to prepare and complete a tax return. The tax logic agent proposes suggested questions to be asked to a user to fill in missing blanks. This process can be continued until completeness of all tax topics has occurred. A completed tax return (e.g., a printed tax return or an electronic tax return) can then be prepared and filed with respect to the relevant taxing jurisdictions.
In another aspect of the tax return preparation system, a computer-implemented method of calculating tax liability may include the operations of a computing device establishing a connection to a shared data store configured to store user-specific tax data therein. The computing device executes a tax calculation engine configured to read and write tax calculation data to and from the shared data store, the tax calculation engine using one or more of the calculation graphs specific to particular tax topics. The computing device executes a tax logic agent, the tax logic agent reading from the shared data store and a plurality of decision tables collectively representing a completion graph for computing tax liability or a portion thereof, the tax logic agent outputting one or more suggestions for missing tax data based on an entry in one of the plurality of decision tables. The computing device executes a user interface manager configured to receive the one or more suggestions and present to a user one or more questions based on the one or more suggestions via a user interface, wherein a user response to the one or more questions is input to the shared data store. The user interface manager is configured to generate and display a question screen to the user. The question screen includes a question for the user requesting tax data and is also configured to receive the tax data from the user in the form of input from the user. The user interface manager which receives the suggestion(s) selects one or more suggested questions to be presented to a user. Alternatively, the user interface manager may ignore the suggestion(s) and present a different question or prompt to the user.
In the event that all tax topics are covered, the tax logic agent, instead of outputting one or more suggestions for missing tax data may output a “done” instruction to the user interface manager. The computing device may then prepare a tax return based on the data in the shared data store. The tax return may be a conventional paper-based return or, alternatively, the tax return may be an electronic tax return which can then be e-filed.
The one or more suggestions may be tax topics, tax questions, declarative statements regarding the tax return, or confirmations regarding the tax return, referred to collectively as “tax matters,” that are output by the tax logic agent. The one or more suggestions may include a ranked listing of suggestions. The ranking may be weighted in order of importance, relevancy, confidence level, or the like. Statistical data may be incorporated by the tax logic agent to be used as part of the ranking.
In another aspect, the tax preparation system may use a method for determining the relevancy and prioritizing the suggested tax matters (as defined above, tax matters includes tax topics, tax questions, declarative statements regarding the tax return, or confirmations) output by the tax logic agent based on a taxpayer data profile generated by the tax return preparation system. In this way, the system can obtain the required tax data for the taxpayer in a more efficient and tailored fashion for the particular taxpayer. The tax return preparation system accesses taxpayer data comprising personal data and/or tax data regarding the taxpayer by any of the means described below, such as from prior year tax returns, third party databases, user inputs, etc. The system then generates a taxpayer data profile using the taxpayer data. For instance, the taxpayer data profile may include the taxpayer's age, occupation, place of residence, estimated income, etc.
The system executes the tax logic agent to evaluate missing tax data and to output a plurality of suggested tax matters for obtaining the missing tax data to the user interface manager, as described above. In addition, the tax logic agent utilizes the taxpayer data profile and a statistical/life knowledge module to determine a relevancy ranking for each of the suggested tax matter. For example, the relevancy ranking may be an index score, a binary value (such as relevant or not relevant), relative ranking among the suggested tax matters (e.g. from most relevant to least relevant), or other suitable relevancy ranking.
The statistical/life knowledge module comprises tax correlation data regarding a plurality of tax matter correlations. Each of the tax matter correlations quantifies a correlation between a taxpayer attribute and a tax related aspect. For instance, a taxpayer attribute could be taxpayer age which may be correlated to a tax related aspect such as having dependents, or a taxpayer attribute might be taxpayer age which may be correlated to homeownership. The tax correlation data also quantifies the correlations, such as by a probability of the correlation. For instance, for the example above, a 45 year old taxpayer may have a certain probability of homeownership, such as 60% probability of homeownership. The quantification can also be binary, such as relevant or not relevant. For example, if the taxpayer data profile indicates the taxpayer is married, the correlation may indicate that spouse information will be required.
The system then executes the user interface manager to receive the suggested tax matters and the relevancy ranking for the suggested tax matters. The user interface manager utilizes the relevancy ranking for each of the suggested tax matters to determine one or more tax questions for the suggested tax matters to present to the user, such as a first tax question. For example, if the relevancy ranking for a particular tax matter is very high, the user interface manager will select a tax question for that tax matter first. Then, the tax logic agent and user interface manager will iterate the process and progress with the tax matters having lower relevancy rankings.
In another aspect of the method for determining relevancy and prioritizing suggested tax matters during preparation of a tax return, the tax return preparation system updates the taxpayer data profile and relevancy rankings as more tax data regarding the taxpayer is received. Accordingly, the system presents the first tax question to the user and receives new tax data from the user in response to the first tax question. The system then updates the taxpayer data profile based on the new tax data and generates an updated taxpayer data profile. The system executes the tax logic agent to evaluate missing tax data and to output a second plurality of suggested tax matters to the user interface manager utilizing the updated taxpayer data profile and the statistical/life knowledge module to determine relevancy rankings for each of the second plurality of suggested tax matters. This process may be repeated until all required tax data has been received and the tax return is completed.
Accordingly, the method allows the system to tailor the user experience in preparing the electronic tax return to the tax situation of the particular taxpayer, providing a simpler, more straightforward and more efficient process.
In still another aspect, a method for generating the database of tax correlation data for the statistical/life knowledge module used for tailoring a user experience in preparing an electronic tax return using the computerized tax return preparation system is provided. As described above, the tax correlation data comprises a plurality of tax matter correlations in which each tax matter correlation quantifies a correlation between a taxpayer attribute and a tax related aspect. The method effectively leverages available data regarding taxpayer attributes and tax related aspects, such as from previously filed tax returns and user experiences with tax preparation application, to determine the best tax questions and order of tax questions to present to a user in preparing a tax return using a tax return preparation application. In one embodiment, a computing device accesses a data source having a plurality of data records. Each data record comprises a taxpayer attribute and a tax related aspect for a respective taxpayer. The taxpayer attribute and tax related aspect may be as described above.
The computing device analyzes the plurality of data records and determines a correlation between the taxpayer attribute and the tax related aspect and determines a probability for the correlation. For instance, the correlation may be between the age of the taxpayer and having asked the taxpayer a certain tax question and the taxpayer's response, such as whether the taxpayer owned a home and receiving an affirmative or negative response. The system then utilizes the probability for the correlation to determine a quantitative relevancy score for a tax matter, which is then incorporated into the tax correlation data of the life/knowledge module. As described above, the tax correlation data is used by the tax logic agent in determining the one or more suggested tax matters and determining a relevancy ranking for each of the suggested tax matters.
In additional aspects of the method for generating the database of tax correlation data for the statistical/life knowledge module, the method may utilize a training algorithm to determine the correlation between the taxpayer attribute and the tax related aspect. The training algorithm learns as it analyzes the data records, and uses the learned knowledge in analyzing additional data records accessed by the computing device. The training algorithm also trains future versions of the tax return preparation application to alter the user experience by modifying the content of tax questions and order of tax questions presented to a user based on taxpayer correlations and the quantitative relevancy scores. In another aspect, the method utilizes a scoring algorithm to determine the quantitative relevancy score.
In yet another aspect, a method for facilitating ad hoc entry of tax data by a user using the tax return preparation system is provided. By ad hoc entry of tax data, it is meant the entry of tax data not driven by a linear interview experience or in a pre-set order. The tax return preparation system simply receives an identification of a user-identified tax topic from the user. This may be the name of a tax document, such as “W-2”, or a tax topic, such as “wages”, and may be entered by the user in any suitable manner, such as a fillable input or search field, selectable button or link, etc. The system then executes the tax logic agent to determine one or more suggested tax matters based on the user-identified tax topic and outputs the suggested tax matters to the user interface manager. For instance, if the identification of a user-identified tax topic is “W-2” then the tax logic agent may determine and output a tax matter for W-2 income wages.
The user interface manager receives the suggested tax matters, and determines a first tax question for the suggested tax matter to present to the user based on the suggested tax matters. Since this is a user-identified tax matter, the tax logic agent may set a very high relevancy ranking for the suggested tax matters directly relevant to the user-identified tax topic.
In another aspect of the ad hoc method, the system may modify the relevancy value for one or more tax topics based on new tax data received from the user in response to the first tax question. This is similar to the update of the relevancy rankings described above. The system receives new tax data from the user in response to the first tax question. The system analyzes the new tax data and modifies a relevancy value for one or more tax topics based on the new tax data. The relevancy value indicates the relevancy of the tax topic to the particular taxpayer. The relevancy value may be a matter of degree, such as highly relevant, somewhat relevant, barely relevant, or it may be a quantitative score or index, or it may be a binary value such as relevant or not relevant. For example, if the first tax question is whether the taxpayer has a spouse, then the system may modify the relevancy of spouse information to be required tax data. As another example, if the first question(s) is about the taxpayer's age and wages, then the system may use that information to modify the relevancy of tax questions asking the taxpayer about dividend income. The tax logic agent then utilizes the modified relevancy value of the one or more tax topics to determine one or more second suggested tax matters which are output to the user interface manager. The user interface manager receives the second suggested tax matters and determines a second tax question for the second suggested tax matters to present to the user. This process may be iteratively repeated as more tax data is input by the user and/or received by the system.
One embodiment of the present invention is directed to methods of using one or more predictive models for determining the relevancy and prioritizing the tax matters presented to a user in preparing an electronic tax return using the computerized tax return preparation system (such as by using the predictive models to determine suggested tax matters that are likely relevant to the taxpayer). The method of using predictive models may be alternative to, or in addition to, the methods of determining relevancy and prioritizing tax matters using the statistical/life knowledge module, as described above. As used herein, the term “predictive model” means an algorithm utilizing as input(s) taxpayer data comprising at least one of personal data and tax data regarding the particular taxpayer, and configured to generate as output(s) one or more tax matters (as defined above), which are predicted to be relevant to the taxpayer, the algorithm created using at least one of the predictive modeling techniques selected from the group consisting of: logistic regression; naive bayes; k-means classification; K-means clustering; other clustering techniques; k-nearest neighbor; neural networks; decision trees; random forests; boosted trees; k-nn classification; kd trees; generalized linear models; support vector machines; and substantial equivalents thereof. The algorithm may also be selected from any subgroup of these techniques, such as at least one of the predictive modeling techniques selected from the group consisting of decision trees; k-means classification; and support vector machines. The predictive model may be based on any suitable data, such as previously filed tax returns, user experiences with tax preparation applications, financial data from any suitable source, demographic data from any suitable source, and the like. Similar to the method using the statistical/life knowledge module, this method allows the system to obtain the required tax data for the taxpayer in a more efficient and tailored fashion for the particular taxpayer.
In the method of using the predictive model, the tax return preparation system accesses taxpayer data comprising personal data and/or tax data regarding the taxpayer by any of the means described herein, such as from prior year tax returns, third party databases, user inputs, etc. For example, the taxpayer data may include the taxpayer's age, occupation, place of residence, estimated income, etc. The taxpayer data may also include other tax data in the tax return being prepared. The predictive model may comprise, or be a part of, a separate module or subsystem callable by the tax return preparation system, or it may be integrated within the tax return preparation system.
The tax return preparation system then executes the predictive model, such as by calling the separate module or subsystem, or simply executing the predictive model within the tax return preparation system, as the case may be. The predictive model receives the taxpayer data and inputs the taxpayer data into the predictive model as the input(s) to the predictive model. The predictive model then generates one or more predicted tax matters which the predictive model determines to be likely to be relevant to the taxpayer.
In another aspect of the method of using the predictive model, the tax preparation system may then determine one or more tax questions to present to a user for obtaining missing tax data for completing the tax return based at least in part upon the predicted tax matters. The tax preparation system may accomplish this by using the tax logic agent and user interface manager in the same or similar manner as described above for the method of using the statistical/life knowledge module.
In still another aspect of the method of using the predictive model, the tax return preparation system may be configured for real-time, also called synchronous, evaluation of the predictive model. The system is configured to execute the predictive model based on all of the available taxpayer data each time the system determines tax questions to present to the user based upon predicted tax matters generated by the predictive model, including new tax data entered during the preparation of the tax return. In other words, as the tax return preparation system iteratively receives new taxpayer data (such as responses to tax questions presented to the user), the predictive model iteratively receives the new tax data and iteratively generates updated predicted tax matters utilizing the new tax data. Then, each time the system determines the next tax question(s) to present the user (such as when the tax logic agent is called to generate one or more suggested tax matters), the system executes the predictive model based on the new taxpayer data received by the system. This may require that the process must wait until the predictive model has generated one or more updated predicted tax matters based upon all of the new taxpayer data received by the system.
In another aspect of the method of using the predictive model, the tax return preparation system may be configured for background, also called asynchronous, evaluation of the predictive model. Again, the system iteratively receives new taxpayer data (such as responses to tax questions presented to the user), the predictive model iteratively receives the new tax data and iteratively generates updated predicted tax matters utilizing the new tax data. However, instead of always using the predicted tax matters based on all of the new tax data received by the system, the system utilizes the most recent updated predicted tax matters from the predictive model even if the most recent updated predicted tax matters are not based upon all of the new tax data received. This eliminates any waiting for the predictive model to generated updated predicted tax matters based on all of the new tax data, but has the disadvantage that the predicted tax matters are not based on all of the available tax data.
In another aspect of the method of using a predictive model, the predictive model also generates a relevancy score for each of the one or more predicted tax matters. The relevancy score quantifies the relevancy of the predicted tax matters. The relevancy score may be used by the system (such as by the tax logic agent similar to its use of the quantitative relevance) to determine the most relevant tax questions to present to the user.
Another embodiment of the present invention is directed to a system for using one or more predictive models to determine which tax matters are relevant to a taxpayer during preparation of an electronic tax return. The system includes or comprises a tax return preparation system comprising a computing device (i.e. a computer) having a computer processor, and a tax return preparation software application executable on the computing device. The computing device is operably coupled to a shared data store configured to store user-specific tax data for one or more taxpayers. The system also has one or more predictive models (as defined above). The predictive model may be a separate module or subsystem of the system or it may be integrated within the tax return preparation application. The tax return preparation software application is configured to utilize predicted tax matters generated by the predictive model to determine output tax questions to present to a user. For instance, the system may include a tax logic agent configured to receive the predicted tax matters generated by the predictive model and to output one or more suggestions for obtaining the missing tax data to a user interface manager; and a user interface manager configured to receive the one or more suggestions for obtaining the missing tax data and to determine output tax questions to be presented to the user. The tax return preparation software application typically also includes a tax calculation engine configured to read user-specific tax data from a shared data store and write calculated tax data to the shared data store. The tax calculation engine is configured to perform a plurality of tax calculations based on a tax calculation graph. The system may also include servers, data storage devices, and one or more displays. The tax return preparation system is configured and programmed to perform a process according to any of the method embodiments of the present invention. For instance, the system may be configured for: accessing taxpayer data comprising personal data and tax data regarding a taxpayer, the tax return preparation system comprising a computing device having a computer processor and a tax return preparation software application; and executing a predictive model, the predictive model receiving the taxpayer data, inputting the taxpayer data into the predictive model and generating one or more predicted tax matters comprising tax topics and/or tax questions which the predictive model determines are likely to be relevant to the taxpayer.
In addition, the system may be implemented on a computing system operated by the user or an online application operating on a web server and accessible using a computing device via a communications network such as the internet.
In additional aspects, the tax return preparation system may be further configured according to the additional aspects described herein for any of the methods of preparing an electronic tax return.
In another aspect of the tax return preparation system, the tax return preparation software running on the computing device imports tax data into the shared data store. The importation of tax data may come from one or more third party data sources. The imported tax data may also come from one or more prior year tax returns. In another aspect of the invention, the shared data store may be input with one or more estimates.
In still another feature, the tax return preparation system comprises a computer-implemented system for calculating tax liability. The system includes a computing device operably coupled to the shared data store which is configured to store user-specific tax data therein. The computing device executes a tax calculation engine. The tax calculation engine accesses taxpayer-specific tax data from the shared data store, and is configured to read and to read and write data to and from the shared data store. The tax calculation engine performs the tax calculations based on one or more tax calculation graphs. The tax calculation graph may be a single overall calculation graph for all of the tax calculations required to calculate a tax return, or it may comprise a plurality of tax topic calculation graphs specific to particular tax topics which may be compiled to form the overall tax calculation graph. The computing device executes a tax logic agent, the tax logic agent reading from the shared data store and a plurality of decision tables collectively representing a completion graph for computing tax liability or a portion thereof, the tax logic agent outputting one or more suggestions for missing tax data based on one of the plurality of decision tables. The computing device executes a user interface manager configured to receive the one or more suggestions and present to a user with one or more questions based on the one or more suggestions via a user interface, wherein a user response to the one or more questions is input to the shared data store.
In another aspect, a system for generating the database of tax correlation data for the statistical/life knowledge module used for tailoring a user experience in preparing an electronic tax return using one or more of the described methods is provided. The system includes or comprises a computing device having a computer processor and memory and a user experience tailoring software application executable by the computing device. The system may also include servers, data storage devices, and one or more displays. The system is configured and programmed to perform a process according to any of the method embodiments of the present invention for tailoring a user experience in preparing an electronic tax return. For instance, the system may be configured for: accessing a data source having a plurality of data records, each data record comprising a taxpayer attribute and a tax related aspect for a respective taxpayer; analyzing the plurality of data records and determining a correlation between the taxpayer attribute and the tax related aspect, and determining a probability for the correlation; and utilizing the probability for the correlation to determine a quantitative relevancy score for a tax matter comprising one of a tax question or a tax topic, wherein the quantitative relevancy score is for use by a tax logic agent of the computerized tax preparation system in determining one or more suggestions for obtaining missing tax data required for preparing a tax return.
In addition, the system for generating the database of tax correlation data may be implemented on a computing system operated by the user or an online application operating on a web server and accessible using a computing device via a communications network such as the internet.
In additional aspects, the system for generating a database of tax correlation data for tailoring a user experience may be further configured according to the additional aspects described above for the methods for generating a database of tax correlation data.
Another embodiment of the present invention is directed to an article of manufacture comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium embodying instructions executable by a computer to execute a process according to any of the method embodiments of the present invention for using one or more predictive models to determine which tax matters are relevant to a taxpayer during preparation of an electronic tax return according to one or more of the described methods. For instance, the non-transitory computer readable medium embodying instructions executable by a computer may be configured to execute a process comprising: accessing taxpayer data comprising personal data and tax data regarding a taxpayer; and executing a predictive model, the predictive model receiving the taxpayer data, inputting the taxpayer data into the predictive model and generating one or more predicted tax matters comprising tax topics and/or tax questions which the predictive model determines are likely to be relevant to the taxpayer.
In additional aspects, the article of manufacture may be further configured according to the additional aspects described above for the methods of predicting which tax matters are relevant to a taxpayer using a predictive model.
It is understood that the steps of the methods and processes of the present invention are not required to be performed in the order as shown in the figures or as described, but can be performed in any order that accomplishes the intended purpose of the methods and processes.
Embodiments of the present invention are directed to methods, systems and articles of manufacture for predicting which tax matters are relevant to a particular taxpayer during preparation of an electronic tax return on a tax return preparation system. Generally, the tax return preparation system accesses taxpayer data such as personal data and/or tax data regarding the particular taxpayer. The system executes a predictive model, as explicitly defined above, which receives the taxpayer data as inputs to the predictive model. The predictive model is an algorithm which utilizes the taxpayer data as inputs and generates as output(s) one or more predicted tax matters which are determined to be likely to be relevant to the taxpayer. The system may then determine tax questions to present to the user based at least in part upon the predicted tax matters determined by the predictive model. Accordingly, the invention allows the system to effectively personalize and tailor the tax preparation experience to the particular taxpayer, thereby providing a simpler, more straightforward, and efficient process of preparing an electronic tax return. Although the embodiments of the present invention are described in the context of a tax return preparation system and tax return preparation software application having some specific components, features, functionality and methods, the present invention is not limited to a system and/or application having all of such specific components, features, functionality and methods, but only requires that the system and application have sufficient elements and functionality to prepare an electronic tax return. Indeed, the tax return preparation system and tax return preparation software application need only have sufficient components, structure and functionality to prepare an electronic tax return, unless explicitly described or claimed otherwise.
Tax preparation is a time-consuming and laborious process. It is estimated that individuals and businesses spend around 6.1 billion hours per year complying with the filing requirements of the Internal Revenue Code. Tax return preparation software has been commercially available to assist taxpayers in preparing their tax returns. Tax return preparation software is typically run on a computing device such as a computer, laptop, tablet, or mobile computing device such as a Smartphone. Traditionally, a user has walked through a set of rigidly defined user interface interview screens that selectively ask questions that are relevant to a particular tax topic or data field needed to calculate a taxpayer's tax liability.
In addition to the prior iterations of tax return preparation systems and tax return preparation application software, the current invention may also be implement on tax preparation software 100 that may run on computing devices 102 that operate on a new construct in which tax rules and the calculations based thereon are established in declarative data-structures, namely, completeness graph(s) and tax calculation graph(s). Use of these data-structures permits the user interface to be loosely connected or even divorced from the tax calculation engine and the data used in the tax calculations. Tax calculations are dynamically calculated based in tax data derived from sourced data, estimates, or user input. A smart tax logic agent running on a set of rules can review current run time data and evaluate missing data fields and propose suggested questions to be asked to a user to fill in missing blanks. This process can be continued until completeness of all tax topics has occurred. An electronic return can then be prepared and filed with respect to the relevant taxing jurisdictions.
Note that in
The completeness graph 12 and the tax calculation graph 14 represent data structures that can be constructed in the form of tree.
As one can imagine given the complexities and nuances of the tax code, many tax topics may contain completeness graphs 12 that have many nodes with a large number of pathways to completion. However, by many branches or lines within the completeness graph 12 can be ignored, for example, when certain questions internal to the completeness graph 12 are answered that eliminate other nodes 20 and arcs 22 within the completeness graph 12. The dependent logic expressed by the completeness graph 12 allows one to minimize subsequent questions based on answers given to prior questions. This allows a minimum question set that can be generated that can be presented to a user as explained herein.
As explained herein, the directed graph or completion graph 12 that is illustrated in
Referring to
After an initial question has been presented and rows are eliminated as a result of the selection, next, a collection of candidate questions from the remaining available rows 32a and 32b is determined. From this universe of candidate questions from the remaining rows, a candidate question is selected. In this case, the candidate questions are questions QC and QG in columns 34c, 34g, respectively. One of these questions is selected and the process repeats until either the goal 34h is reached or there is an empty candidate list.
Still other internal nodes 26 semantically represent a tax concept and may be calculated using a function node 28. Some or all of these internal nodes 26 may be labeled as “tax concepts.” Interconnected nodes 26 containing tax concepts may be connected via “gist” functions that can be tagged and later be used or called upon to explain to the user the reasoning behind why a particular result was calculated or determined by the tax preparation software 100 program as explained in more detail below. Gists are well-defined functions to capture domain specific patterns and semantic abstractions used in tax calculations. Gists can be de-coupled from a specific narrow definition and instead be associated with one or more explanation. Examples of common “gists” found in tax legislation/rules include the concepts of “caps” or “exceptions” that are found in various portions of the tax code. The function node 28 may include any number of mathematical or other operations. Examples of functions 28 include summation, subtraction, multiplication, division, and look-ups of tables or values from a database 30 or library as is illustrated in
The calculation graph 14 also has a plurality of calculation paths connecting the nodes 24, 26 and 28, which define data dependencies between the nodes. A second node is considered to be dependent on a first node if a calculation (calculation includes any determination within the calculation graph, such as function, decisions, etc.) at the second node depends on a value of the first node. A second node has a direct dependency on the first node if it is directly dependent on the first node without any intervening nodes. A second node has an indirect dependency on the first node if it is dependent on a node which is directly dependent on the first node or an intervening node along a calculation path to the first node. Although there are many more calculation paths in the calculation graph 14 of
The schema 44 may be a modified version of the MeF schema used by the IRS. For example, the schema 44 may be an extended or expanded version (designated MeF++) of the MeF model established by government authorities. While the particular MeF schema 44 is discussed herein the invention is not so limited. There may be many different schemas 44 depending on the different tax jurisdiction. For example, Country A may have a tax schema 44 that varies from Country B. Different regions or states within a single country may even have different schemas 44. The systems and methods described herein are not limited to a particular schema 44 implementation. The schema 44 may contain all the data fields required to prepare and file a tax return with a government taxing authority. This may include, for example, all fields required for any tax forms, schedules, and the like. Data may include text, numbers, and a response to a Boolean expression (e.g., True/False or Yes/No). As explained in more detail, the shared data store 42 may, at any one time, have a particular instance 46 of the MeF schema 44 (for MeF++ schema) stored therein at any particular time. For example,
As seen in
For example, user input 48a is one type of data source 48. User input 48a may take a number of different forms. For example, user input 48a may be generated by a user using, for example, a input device such as keyboard, mouse, touchscreen display, voice input (e.g., voice to text feature) or the like to enter information manually into the tax preparation software 100. For example, as illustrated in
User input 48a may also include some form of automatic data gathering. For example, a user may scan or take a photographic image of a tax document (e.g., W-2 or 1099) that is then processed by the tax preparation software 100 to extract relevant data fields that are then automatically transferred and stored within the data store 42. OCR techniques along with pre-stored templates of tax reporting forms may be called upon to extract relevant data from the scanned or photographic images whereupon the data is then transferred to the shared data store 42.
Another example of a data source 48 is a prior year tax return 48b. A prior year tax return 48b that is stored electronically can be searched and data is copied and transferred to the shared data store 42. The prior year tax return 48b may be in a proprietary format (e.g., .txf, .pdf) or an open source format. The prior year tax return 48b may also be in a paper or hardcopy format that can be scanned or imaged whereby data is extracted and transferred to the shared data store 42. In another embodiment, a prior year tax return 48b may be obtained by accessing a government database (e.g., IRS records).
An additional example of a data source 48 is an online resource 48c. An online resource 48c may include, for example, websites for the taxpayer(s) that contain tax-related information. For example, financial service providers such as banks, credit unions, brokerages, investment advisors typically provide online access for their customers to view holdings, balances, transactions. Financial service providers also typically provide year-end tax documents to their customers such as, for instance, 1099-INT (interest income), 1099-DIV (dividend income), 1099-B (brokerage proceeds), 1098 (mortgage interest) forms. The data contained on these tax forms may be captured and transferred electronically to the shared data store 42.
Of course, there are additional examples of online resources 48c beyond financial service providers. For example, many taxpayers may have social media or similar accounts. These include, by way of illustration and not limitation, Facebook, Linked-In, Twitter, and the like. User's may post or store personal information on these properties that may have tax implications. For example, a user's Linked-In account may indicate that a person changed jobs during a tax year. Likewise, a posting on Facebook about a new home may suggest that a person has purchased a home, moved to a new location, changed jobs; all of which may have possible tax ramifications. This information is then acquired and transferred to the shared data store 42, which can be used to drive or shape the interview process described herein. For instance, using the example above, a person may be asked a question whether or not she changed jobs during the year (e.g., “It looks like you changed jobs during the past year, is this correct?”. Additional follow-up questions can then be presented to the user.
Still referring to
Still referring to
Still referring to
As seen in
The following pseudo code generally expresses how a rule engine 64 functions utilizing a fact cache based on the runtime canonical data 62 or the instantiated representation of the canonical tax schema 46 at runtime and generating non-binding suggestions 66 provided as an input a UI control 80. As described in U.S. application Ser. No. 14/097,057 previously incorporated herein by reference, data such as required inputs can be stored to a fact cache so that the needed inputs can be recalled at a later time, and to determine what is already known about variables, factors or requirements of various rules.
The TLA 60 may also receive or otherwise incorporate information from a statistical/life knowledge module 70. The statistical/life knowledge module 70 contains statistical or probabilistic data related to the taxpayer. For example, statistical/life knowledge module 70 may indicate that taxpayers residing within a particular zip code are more likely to be homeowners than renters. More specifically, the statistical/life knowledge module may comprise tax correlation data regarding a plurality of tax matter correlations. Each of the tax matter correlations quantifies a correlation between a taxpayer attribute and a tax related aspect. For instance, a taxpayer attribute could be taxpayer age which may be correlated to a tax related aspect such as having dependents, or a taxpayer attribute might be taxpayer age which may be correlated to homeownership or other relevant tax related aspect. The tax correlation data also quantifies the correlations, such as by a probability of the correlation. For instance, the correlation between the taxpayer attribute and the tax related aspect may be a certain percentage probability, such as 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, or any percentage from 0% to 100%. Alternatively, the quantification can be a binary value, such as relevant or not relevant. In other words, for a given taxpayer attribute, it may be determined that a tax related aspect is relevant or completely not relevant when a taxpayer has the given taxpayer attribute. As an example, if the taxpayer attribute is that the taxpayer is married, the correlation may indicate that spouse information is relevant and will be required.
The TLA 60 may use this knowledge to weight particular topics or questions related to these topics. For example, in the example given above, questions about home mortgage interest may be promoted or otherwise given a higher weight. The statistical knowledge may apply in other ways as well. For example, tax forms often require a taxpayer to list his or her profession. These professions may be associated with transactions that may affect tax liability. For instance, a taxpayer may list his or her occupation as “teacher.” The statistic/life knowledge module 70 may contain data that shows that a large percentage of teachers have retirement accounts and in particular 403(b) retirement accounts. This information may then be used by the TLA 60 when generating its suggestions 66. For example, rather than asking generically about retirement accounts, the suggestion 66 can be tailored directly to a question about 403(b) retirement accounts.
The data that is contained within the statistic/life knowledge module 70 may be obtained by analyzing aggregate tax data of a large body of taxpayers. For example, entities having access to tax filings may be able to mine their own proprietary data to establish connections and links between various taxpayer characteristics and tax topics. This information may be contained in a database or other repository that is accessed by the statistic/life knowledge module 70. This information may be periodically refreshed or updated to reflect the most up-to-date relationships. Generally, the data contained in the statistic/life knowledge module 70 is not specific to a particular taxpayer but is rather generalized to characteristics shared across a number of taxpayers although in other embodiments, the data may be more specific to an individual taxpayer. A method 1450 for generating a database of tax correlation data for the statistical/life knowledge module 70 is described below with respect to
Turning now to
At step 1414, the system 40 uses the taxpayer data to generate a taxpayer data profile. As some examples, the taxpayer data profile may include the taxpayer's age, occupation, place of residence, estimated income, actual income from prior tax returns, more general geographical location, marital status, investment information, etc.
At step 1416, the system 40 executes the TLA 60 to evaluate missing tax data and to output a plurality of suggested tax matters 66 for obtaining the missing tax data to the user interface manager 82, as described in more detail above. At the same time, the TLA 60 utilizes the taxpayer data profile and the statistical/life knowledge module 70 to determine a relevancy ranking for each of the suggested tax matters. The relevancy ranking is an indication of the relative relevancy of each suggested tax matter to other tax matters within the suggested tax matters or even other tax matters not in the suggested tax matters. The relevancy ranking may be an index score, a binary value (such as relevant or not relevant), relative ranking among the suggested tax matters (e.g. from most relevant to least relevant), or other suitable relevancy ranking.
At step 1418, the system 40 executes the user interface manager 82 to receive the suggested tax matters and the relevancy ranking for the suggested tax matters. The user interface manager 82 analyzes the relevancy ranking for each of the suggested tax matters and determines one or more tax questions for the suggested tax matters to present to the user, which includes at least a first tax question. The relevancy ranking has a direct influence on the tax questions that the user interface manager 82 will determine to present because a suggested tax matter having a high relevancy ranking, or at least higher than the relevancy ranking of the other suggested tax matters, will have priority in determining the tax questions. In other words, if a tax matter having a high relevancy ranking is very high, the user interface manager will select one or more tax questions for that tax matter first.
The system 40 may repeat steps 1416-1418 iteratively until all of the required tax data for preparing the tax return has been received by the system 40.
In another aspect of the method 1400, the tax return preparation system 40 updates the taxpayer data profile and relevancy rankings as more tax data regarding the taxpayer is received. At step 1420 the system presents the one or more tax questions determined by the user interface manager 82 at step 1418 and receives new tax data from the user in response to the one or more tax questions. At step 1422, the system 40 updates the taxpayer data profile based on the new tax data and generates an updated taxpayer data profile. At step 1424, the system 40 executes the TLA 60 to evaluate missing tax data and to output a second plurality of suggested tax matters to the user interface manager 82 utilizing the updated taxpayer data profile and the statistical/life knowledge module and determines relevancy rankings for each of the second plurality of suggested tax matters. At step 1426, the system 40 executes the user interface manager 82 to receive the second plurality of suggested tax matters and to determine one or more second tax question(s) to present to the user. Similar to the sub-process of steps 1416-1418, above, the process of steps 1418 to 1426 until all required tax data has been received and the tax return is completed.
In yet another optional aspect of the method 1400, the method may be configured to automatically access a remotely located third party data source to access tax data for a tax matter. At step 1428, the TLA 60 determines a high probability that a first tax matter of the suggested tax matters (or second suggested tax matters, or subsequent suggested tax matters) will apply to the taxpayer based on the relevancy ranking of the first tax matter. The term “first tax matter” does not necessarily refer to the first tax matter suggested by the TLA 60, but only distinguishes it from other suggested tax matters. A high probability may be at least a 60% probability, at least a 70% probability, at least a 80% probability, at least a 90% probability or a 100% certainty or other suitable probability which indicates it would be desirable to access the data from a remote data source, if possible. At step 1430, the system 40 accesses one or more remotely located user-specific data sources and automatically imports tax data related to the first tax matter from the user-specific data sources. The data sources may be any of the data sources 48 described herein and the system 40 may access the data sources by any of the methods described herein for accessing remotely located data sources, including those described above for gathering tax related data from remote data sources. As the system 40 receives new tax data from the remote user-specific data sources, the system 40 may also update the relevancy rankings as described above and modify relevancy values and/or relevancy rankings for one or more tax topics based on the new tax data. The TLA 60 may then use the modified relevancy values and/or relevancy rankings to determine one or more new suggested tax matters and output the new suggested tax matters to the user interface manager 82. The user interface manager 82 then determines one or more additional tax questions for the new suggested tax matters to present to the user based on the new suggested tax matters.
Referring now to
At step 1452, the computing device 102 accesses a data source having a plurality of data records. The data source may be any suitable source of data regarding taxpayer attributes and tax related aspects which can be analyzed to find correlations between taxpayer attributes and tax related aspects. As some examples, the data source may be any of the data sources 48 described above, such as a database of previously filed tax returns having data records comprising tax data from previously filed tax returns, a database of financial account data comprising data records of financial data, a database of social media account data comprising data records of personal information, etc. The data source may also be a database of previous user experiences in utilizing a tax return preparation application. The data records for such a database may include what questions were asked of certain taxpayers and the effectiveness of asking such questions (such as whether the questions resulted in obtaining relevant tax data for the taxpayer). Each data record in the data source comprises a taxpayer attribute and a tax related aspect for a respective taxpayer, individual or entity. The taxpayer attribute and tax related aspect may be as described above for method 1410.
At step 1454, the computing device 102 analyzes the plurality of data records and determines a correlation between each of the taxpayer attributes and at least one of the tax related aspects and determines a probability for the correlation. The computing device 102 may determine multiple correlations for any one taxpayer attribute or any one tax related aspect, depending on the situation. As some non-limiting examples of possible correlations, the correlations may be:
1. A correlation between the age of the taxpayer and having asked the taxpayer a certain tax question and the taxpayer's response, such as whether the taxpayer owned a home and receiving an affirmative or negative response.
2. A correlation between taxpayer age and homeownership;
3. A correlation between taxpayer address and homeownership;
4. A correlation between taxpayer employment and homeownership;
5. A correlation between taxpayer age and having dependents;
6. A correlation between taxpayer married status and need for spouse tax information;
7. A correlation between taxpayer income and affordable care act information;
8. A correlation between taxpayer income and charitable deductions;
9. A correlation between taxpayer age and social security benefits; and
10. A correlation between income and stock investment information.
This list of examples of correlations is not limiting of the present invention, and many other correlations are contemplated.
The computing device may utilize a training algorithm to determine the correlations between the taxpayer attributes and the tax related aspects. The training algorithm is configured to learn as it analyzes various data sources and data records, and uses the learned knowledge in analyzing additional data records accessed by the computing device. The training algorithm may also train future versions of a tax return preparation application to alter the user experience by modifying the content of tax questions and order of tax questions presented to a user based on the determined correlations and the quantitative relevancy scores.
At step 1456, the computing device 102 utilizes the probability for each of the correlations to determine a quantitative relevancy score for a respective tax matter. The computing device 102 utilizes a scoring algorithm to determine the quantitative relevancy score. The scoring algorithm is configured to convert the probability determined for each correlation into a quantitative relevancy score which can be utilized by the TLA 60 to determine one or more suggested tax matters and also determine a relevancy ranking for each of the suggested tax matters which can in turn be utilized by the user interface manager 82 to determine one or more tax questions to present to the user. In other words, the quantitative relevancy score allows the system 40 to determine the relative relevancy of various tax matters in order to most efficiently present tax questions to the user in a way that minimizes the time and effort required to complete a tax return.
The quantitative relevancy score for each of the tax matters may then be incorporated into the tax correlation data of the life/knowledge module, if desired. As explained above, the tax correlation data is used by the TLA 60 agent in determining the one or more suggested tax matters and determining a relevancy ranking for each of the suggested tax matters.
Turning now to
At step 1476, the user interface manager 82 receives the suggested tax matters, and determines one or more tax questions for the suggested tax matter to present to the user based on the suggested tax matters. The TLA 60 may also determine relevancy rankings and the user interface manager may use the relevancy rankings, as described above for method 1400. As this is a user-identified tax matter, the TLA 60 may set a very high relevancy ranking for the suggested tax matters directly relevant to the user-identified tax topic.
In another aspect of the method 1470, the system 40 may modify the relevancy value for one or more tax topics based on new tax data received from the user in response to the first tax question. This is similar to the update of the relevancy rankings described above. At step 1478, the system 40 receives new tax data from the user in response to the one or more tax questions. At step 1480, the system 40 analyzes the new tax data and modifies a relevancy value for one or more tax topics based on the new tax data. The relevancy value indicates the relevancy of the tax topic to the particular taxpayer. The relevancy value may be a matter of degree, such as highly relevant, somewhat relevant, barely relevant, or it may be a quantitative score or index, or it may be a binary value such as relevant or not relevant. For example, if one of the tax questions is whether the taxpayer has a spouse, then the system 40 may modify the relevancy of spouse information to be required tax data. At step 1482, the TLA 60 then utilizes the modified relevancy value of the one or more tax topics to determine one or more second suggested tax matters which are output to the user interface manager. At step 1484, the user interface manager 82 receives the second suggested tax matters and determines a second tax question for the second suggested tax matters to present to the user. This process is repeated as more tax data is input by the user and/or received by the system 40, until the tax return is completed.
Referring now to
At step 1462 of method 1460, the tax return preparation system 40 accesses taxpayer data comprising personal data and/or tax data regarding the taxpayer for which the tax return is being prepared. As defined herein, tax matters includes tax topics, tax questions, declarative statements regarding the tax return, and/or confirmations. The system 40 may access the taxpayer data any suitable method and from any suitable source, including the method described for accessing the data sources 48, as described herein, from prior year tax returns, third party databases, user inputs including the tax data in the tax return currently being prepared, etc.
At step 1464, the tax return preparation system 40 determines one or more initial tax questions to present to the user for obtaining missing tax data need to complete the tax return based upon predicted tax matters from the predictive model. Step 1464 requires the predictions from the predictive model, so, at step 1466, the tax return preparation system 40 executes the predictive model 71. The predictive model 71 may comprise, or be a part of, a separate module or subsystem callable by the tax return preparation system 40, or it may be integrated within the tax return preparation system 40. The predictive model 71, as explicitly defined above, is an algorithm utilizing as input(s) taxpayer data comprising at least one of personal data and tax data regarding the particular taxpayer, and configured to generate as output(s) one or more tax matters (as defined above), which are predicted to be relevant to the taxpayer, the algorithm created using at least one of the predictive modeling techniques selected from the group consisting of: logistic regression; naive bayes; k-means classification; K-means clustering; other clustering techniques; k-nearest neighbor; neural networks; decision trees; random forests; boosted trees; k-nn classification; kd trees; generalized linear models; support vector machines; and substantial equivalents thereof. The algorithm may also be selected from any subgroup of these techniques, such as at least one of the predictive modeling techniques selected from the group consisting of decision trees; k-means classification; and support vector machines. The predictive model 71 may be based on any suitable data, such as previously filed tax returns, user experiences with tax preparation applications, financial data from any suitable source, demographic data from any suitable source, and the like. As some examples, the taxpayer data may include the taxpayer's age, occupation, place of residence, estimated income, actual income from prior tax returns, more general geographical location, marital status, investment information, etc. The predictive model 71 may utilize one or more items of taxpayer data as inputs to the predictive model 71. For example, the predictive model 71 may utilize 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 20, 30 or more items of personal information and/or tax information as the inputs to the predictive model 71. The system 40 may execute the predictive model 71 by executing the predictive model 71 within the system 40, or by calling the separate predictive model module 71 or subsystem, depending on the configuration of the system. As explained in more detail below, the predictive model 71 may be executed in real-time (synchronously) each time the system needs to determine tax questions to present to the user, or it can be executed in the background (asynchronously) such that the system 40 uses the most recent predicted tax matters from the predictive model 71 at the time the system 40 needs to determine tax questions to present to the user.
At step 1468, the predictive model 71 receives the taxpayer data and inputs the taxpayer data into the predictive model 71 as the inputs to the predictive model 71. At step 1470, the predictive model 71 executes its algorithm using the taxpayer data and generates one or more predicted tax matters which the predictive model 71 determines are likely to be relevant to the taxpayer. The predictive model 71 may determine that a tax matter is likely to be relevant to the taxpayer because there is a high probability it is relevant based on the predictive model 71, or because there is a higher probability than other tax matters, or because the probability is greater than a threshold, such as 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90% or higher, or because it is among the most likely tax matters among other tax matters.
At step 1470, the predictive model 71 may also determine and/or generate a relevancy score for each of the one or more predicted tax matters generated. The relevancy scores may be a qualitative (such as highly relevant, somewhat relevant, barely relevant) or a quantitative measure (such as a quantitative numerical score or index) of the relevancy of each tax matter as determined by the predictive model 71. The relevancy scores for each predicted tax matter may be ranked relative to each other, or they may be indexed based on a scale, or other suitable measure. Same or similar to the quantitative relevancy score, the relevancy scores from the predictive model 71 may be configured such that they can be utilized by the TLA 60 to determine one or more suggested tax matters and also determine a relevancy ranking for each of the suggested tax matters which can in turn be utilized by the user interface manager 82 to determine one or more tax questions to present to the user, as described above.
The predictive model 71 provides the predicted tax matters (and relevancy scores for each of the tax matters, if available) to the system 40.
Returning to step 1464, the tax return preparation system 40 determines one or more tax questions (also referred to as “output tax questions”) to present to the user for obtaining missing tax data based at least in part upon the predicted tax matters. For instance, at one point in the process, the system 40 may determine initial tax questions (also referred to herein as “output tax questions”) to present to the user. The term “initial tax questions” does not necessarily refer to the “first” tax questions presented by the system 40 to the user, but is used to distinguish earlier tax questions from later tax questions (e.g. “updated tax questions” which are generated after receiving new tax data). The system 40 may determine the one or more tax questions based at least upon the predicted tax matters by any suitable method. For instance, the predicted tax matters themselves may comprise tax questions, which the system 40 may determine to present to the user.
In one embodiment, the system 40 may utilize the TLA 60 and user interface manager 82 to determine the tax questions based upon the predicted tax matters. At step 1472, the system executes the TLA 60. The TLA 60 receives the predicted tax matters generated by the predictive model 71. The TLA 60 evaluates missing tax data, as described above, and also evaluates the predicted tax matters (and relevancy scores if available), and generates a plurality of suggested tax matters 66 for obtaining the missing tax data. At the same time, the TLA 60 may utilize the relevancy scores, if available, to determine a relevancy ranking for each of the suggested tax matters. As described above, the relevancy ranking is an indication of the relative relevancy of each suggested tax matter to other tax matters within the suggested tax matters or even other tax matters not in the suggested tax matters. The relevancy ranking may be an index score, a binary value (such as relevant or not relevant), relative ranking among the suggested tax matters (e.g. from most relevant to least relevant), or other suitable relevancy ranking.
In one embodiment, the system 40 may be configured such that the TLA 60 uses the statistical/life knowledge module 60 (including the correlation data), and the predicted tax matters and relevancy scores, to determine the suggested tax matters 66 and/or relevancy rankings.
The TLA 60 outputs the suggested tax matters to the user interface manager 82.
At step 1474, the tax return preparation system 40 executes the user interface manager 82. The user interface manager 82 receives the suggested tax matters 66, and relevancy rankings and/or relevancy scores, if available. The user interface manager 82 analyzes the suggested tax matters and relevancy rankings and/or relevancy scores, and determines one or more output tax questions to present to the user.
At step 1476, the system 40 presents the one or more output tax questions to the user and receives new tax data in response to the one or more output tax questions. The system 40 may present the output tax questions to the user and receive new tax data in response as described above for operation 1700.
At step 1478, the tax return preparation system 40 updates the taxpayer data with the new tax data, and any other tax data received by the system, such as from automated searching of databases, as described above.
The tax return preparation system 40 then iteratively repeats steps 1464-1478 using the updated taxpayer data until all of the tax data required to prepare the tax return has been obtained. For example, when the TLA 60 evaluates the missing tax data at step 1472, the TLA 60 may determine that all relevant tax topics have been covered and all tax data required to complete the tax return has been obtained, in which case the TLA 60 generates a “Done” instruction, as explained above with regard to the operation of the TLA 60.
In one embodiment, the method 1460 may be configured for real-time, i.e. synchronous, evaluation of the predictive model 71. The real-time mode is represented by the solid control flow lines 1480 which show the steps 1466-1470 being completed before completing step 1464. In the real-time embodiment, the method 1460 is configured such that, if at the time the system 40 is required to generate one or more updated tax questions to present to the user after the one or more initial tax questions (i.e. a return to step 1464), the predictive model 71 has not yet generated one or more updated predicted tax matters using the updated taxpayer data, the method 1460 waits at step 1464 until the predictive model 71 has generated one or more updated predicted tax matters using the updated taxpayer data and then step 1464 proceeds with the system 40 determining one or more updated tax questions based at least in part upon the updated predicted tax matters.
In another embodiment, the method 1460 may be configured for background, also called asynchronous, evaluation of the predictive model 71. The background mode is represented by the dashed control flow lines 1482 which show the steps 1466-1470 being run in the background while steps 1464 and 1472-1478 are continue to run without waiting for steps 1455 to be completed. In the background mode, the method 1460 is configured such that, if at the time the system 40 is required to generate one or more updated tax questions to present to the user after the one or more initial tax questions (i.e. the return to step 1464), the predictive model 71 has not yet generated one or more updated predicted tax matters using the updated taxpayer data, then step 1464 determines updated tax questions based at least in part upon the predicted tax matters (i.e. the most recent predicted tax matters generated by the predictive model 71); and if at the system 40 is required to generate one or more updated tax questions to present to the user after the one or more initial tax questions, the predictive model 71 has generated one or more updated predicted tax matters using the updated taxpayer data, then step 1464 determines updated tax questions based at least in part upon the updated predicted tax matters (i.e. all of the taxpayer data received by the system 40.)
In still another embodiment, the method 1460 may be configured to always execute the predictive model 71 whenever the system 40 requires a suggestion or recommendation of tax questions to present to the user. For instance, this may be every time the TLA 60 is called to generate suggested tax questions or every time the method 1460 receives new tax data in response to output tax questions, or every time the method 1460 iterates after step 1478 for updating the taxpayer data with new tax data received by the system. The method 1460 may also be configured to execute the predictive model 71 whenever new tax data is received by the system 40, and step 1464 utilizes the most recent predicted tax matters generated by the predictive model 71 at the time the predicted tax matters are required to execute step 1464 (this means that the predicted tax matters used at step 1464 may not be based on all tax data received by the system 41).
Referring back to
The user interface manager 82, as explained previously, receives non-binding suggestions from the TLA 60. The non-binding suggestions may include a single question or multiple questions that are suggested to be displayed to the taxpayer via the user interface presentation 84. The user interface manager 82, in one aspect of the invention, contains a suggestion resolution element 88, which is responsible for resolving how to respond to the incoming non-binding suggestions 66. For this purpose, the suggestion resolution element 88 may be programmed or configured internally. Alternatively, the suggestion resolution element 88 may access external interaction configuration files. Additional details regarding configuration files and their use may be found in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/206,834, which is incorporated by reference herein.
Configuration files specify whether, when and/or how non-binding suggestions are processed. For example, a configuration file may specify a particular priority or sequence of processing non-binding suggestions 66 such as now or immediate, in the current user interface presentation 84 (e.g., interview screen), in the next user interface presentation 84, in a subsequent user interface presentation 84, in a random sequence (e.g., as determined by a random number or sequence generator). As another example, this may involve classifying non-binding suggestions as being ignored. A configuration file may also specify content (e.g., text) of the user interface presentation 84 that is to be generated based at least in part upon a non-binding suggestion 66.
A user interface presentation 84 may be pre-programmed interview screens that can be selected and provided to the generator element 85 for providing the resulting user interface presentation 84 or content or sequence of user interface presentations 84 to the user. User interface presentations 84 may also include interview screen templates, which are blank or partially completed interview screens that can be utilized by the generation element 85 to construct a final user interface presentation 84 on the fly during runtime.
As seen in
Still referring to
Online resources 118 may also be used by the estimation module 110 to provide estimated values. Online resources 118 include, for example, financial services accounts for a taxpayer that can be accessed to estimate certain values. For example, a taxpayer may have one or more accounts at a bank, credit union, or stock brokerage. These online resources 118 can be accessed by the tax preparation software 100 to scrape, copy, or otherwise obtain tax relevant data. For example, online resources 118 may be accessed to estimate the value of interest income earned. A user's linked accounts may be accessed to find all of the interest income transactions that have occurred in the past year. This information may be used as the basis to estimate total interest income for the taxpayer. In another example, online resources 118 may be accessed to estimate the amount of mortgage interest that has been paid by a taxpayer. Instead of waiting for a Form 1098 from the mortgage service provider.
Still referring to
It should also be understood that the estimation module 110 may rely on one or more inputs to arrive at an estimated value. For example, the estimation module 110 may rely on a combination of prior tax return data 116 in addition to online resources 118 to estimate a value. This may result in more accurate estimations by relying on multiple, independent sources of information. The UI control 80 may be used in conjunction with the estimation module 110 to select those sources of data to be used by the estimation module 110. For example, user input 114 will require input by the user of data using a user interface presentation 84. The UI control 80 may also be used to identify and select prior tax returns 116. Likewise, user names and passwords may be needed for online resources 118 and third party information 120 in which case UI control 80 will be needed to obtain this information from the user.
In one embodiment of the invention, the estimated values or other estimated data provided by the estimation module 110 may be associated with one or more attributes 122 as illustrated in
The attributes 122 may also include a confidence level 126 associated with each estimated field. The confidence level 126 is indicative of the level of trustworthiness of the estimated user-specific tax data and may be expressed in a number of different ways. For example, confidence level 126 may be broken down to intervals (e.g., low, medium, high) with each estimated value given an associated label (e.g., L—low, M—medium, H, high). Alternatively, confidence levels 126 may be described along a continuum without specific ranges (e.g., range from 0.0 to 1.0 with 0.0 being no confidence and 1.0 with 100% confidence). The confidence level 126 may be assigned based on the source of the estimated user-specific tax data (e.g., source #1 is nearly always correct so estimated data obtained from this source will be automatically assigned a high confidence level).
In some embodiments, the estimation module 110 may acquire a plurality of estimates from different sources (e.g., user input 1145, prior year tax returns 116, online resources 118, third party information 120) and only write the “best” estimate to the shared data store 42 (e.g., the source with the highest confidence level 126). Alternatively, the estimation module 110 may be configured to ignore data (e.g., sources) that have confidence levels 126 below a pre-determined threshold. For example, all “low” level data from a source may be ignored. Alternatively, all the data may be stored in the shared data store 42 including, for example, the attribute 122 of the confidence level 126 with each entry. The tax calculation engine 50 may ignore data entries having a confidence level below a pre-determined threshold. The estimation module 110 may generate a number of different estimates from a variety of different sources and then writes a composite estimate based on all the information from all the different sources. For example, sources having higher confidence levels 126 may be weighted more than other sources having lower confidence levels 126.
Still referring to
Referring back to
In some embodiments, each estimated value produced by the estimation module 110 will need to be confirmed by the user using the UI control 80. For example, the user interface manager 82 may present estimated data fields to the user for confirmation or verification using a user interface presentation 84. In other embodiments, however, the user may override data using the user interface presentation 84. Some estimated data, for example, data having a high confidence level 126 may not need to be confirmed but can be assumed as accurate.
The confidence level indicator 132 may take a number of different forms, however. For example, the confidence level indicator 132 may be in the form of a gauge or the like that such as that illustrated in
Referring back to
In one embodiment, the gathering or importation of data sources such as prior tax returns 48b, online resources 48c, and third party information 48d is optional. For example, a taxpayer may want to start the process from scratch without pulling information from other sources. However, in order to streamline and more efficiently complete a tax return other users may desire to obtain tax related information automatically. This would reduce the number of interview or prompt screens that are presented to the user if such information were obtained automatically by the tax preparation software 100. A user may be given the opportunity to select which data sources 48 they want accessed and searched for relevant tax related data that will be imported into the shared data store 42. A user may be asked to submit his or her account and password information for some data sources 48 using the UI control 80. Other data sources 48 such as some third party data sources 48d may be accessed without such information.
Next, as seen in operation 1200, after the schema 44 is populated with the various imported or entered data fields from the data sources 48, the tax calculation engine 50, using the calculation graphs 14, reads data from the shared data store 42, performs tax calculations, and writes back data to the shared data store 42. The schema 44 may also be populated with estimates or educated guesses as explained herein using the estimation module 110 as described in the context of the embodiment of
In operation 1300, the tax logic agent 60 reads the run time data 62 which represents the instantiated representation of the canonical tax schema 44 at runtime. The tax logic agent 60 then utilizes the decision tables 30 to generate and send non-binding suggestions 66 to the UI control 80 as seen in operation 1400. Alternatively, the tax logic agent 60 may determine that completeness has been achieved across the tax topics in which case a done instruction may be delivered to the UI control as seen in operation 1500. If not done, the process continues whereby the user interface manager 82 will then process the suggestion(s) 66 using the suggestion resolution element 88 for resolving of how to respond to the incoming non-binding suggestions 66 as seen in operation 1600. The user interface manager 82 then generates a user interface presentation 84 to the user as seen in operation 1700 whereby the user is presented with one or more prompts. The prompts may include questions, affirmations, confirmations, declaratory statements, and the like. The prompts are displayed on a screen 104 of the computing device 102 whereby the user can then respond to the same by using one or more input devices associated with the computing device 102 (e.g., keyboard, mouse, finger, stylus, voice recognition, etc.).
Still referring to
Method embodiments may also be embodied in, or readable from, a computer-readable medium or carrier, e.g., one or more of the fixed and/or removable data storage data devices and/or data communications devices connected to a computer. Carriers may be, for example, magnetic storage medium, optical storage medium and magneto-optical storage medium. Examples of carriers include, but are not limited to, a floppy diskette, a memory stick or a flash drive, CD-R, CD-RW, CD-ROM, DVD-R, DVD-RW, or other carrier now known or later developed capable of storing data. The processor 304 performs steps or executes program instructions 302 within memory 300 and/or embodied on the carrier to implement method embodiments.
Embodiments, however, are not so limited and implementation of embodiments may vary depending on the platform utilized. Accordingly, embodiments are intended to exemplify alternatives, modifications, and equivalents that may fall within the scope of the claims.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4209839 | Bederman | Jun 1980 | A |
5485544 | Nonaka | Jan 1996 | A |
5500920 | Kupiec | Mar 1996 | A |
5659718 | Osman | Aug 1997 | A |
5802388 | Zetts | Sep 1998 | A |
5819288 | De Bonet | Oct 1998 | A |
5864482 | Hazama | Jan 1999 | A |
5884283 | Manos | Mar 1999 | A |
5944784 | Simonoff | Aug 1999 | A |
6021397 | Jones et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6298333 | Manzi | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6311166 | Nado et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6401080 | Bigus et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6473741 | Baker | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6691116 | Bart | Feb 2004 | B1 |
6718336 | Saffer | Apr 2004 | B1 |
7010507 | Anderson et al. | Mar 2006 | B1 |
7047251 | Reed | May 2006 | B2 |
7149970 | Pratley et al. | Dec 2006 | B1 |
7181438 | Szabo | Feb 2007 | B1 |
7254554 | Tawara et al. | Aug 2007 | B2 |
7289956 | Yu et al. | Oct 2007 | B2 |
7461059 | Richardson et al. | Dec 2008 | B2 |
7539635 | Peak | May 2009 | B1 |
7558777 | Santos | Jul 2009 | B1 |
7565312 | Shaw et al. | Jul 2009 | B1 |
7584093 | Potter et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7590572 | Larson | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7603301 | Regan | Oct 2009 | B1 |
7610226 | Miller | Oct 2009 | B1 |
7636742 | Olavarrieta et al. | Dec 2009 | B1 |
7668763 | Albrecht | Feb 2010 | B1 |
7680756 | Quinn | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7685034 | Mori et al. | Mar 2010 | B1 |
7685082 | Coletta et al. | Mar 2010 | B1 |
7693769 | Burlison et al. | Apr 2010 | B1 |
7712023 | Bryan | May 2010 | B1 |
7716094 | Sutter | May 2010 | B1 |
7716099 | Welch et al. | May 2010 | B1 |
7742958 | Leek et al. | Jun 2010 | B1 |
7747484 | Stanley et al. | Jun 2010 | B2 |
7756761 | Albrecht | Jul 2010 | B1 |
7756855 | Ismalon | Jul 2010 | B2 |
7769647 | Char et al. | Aug 2010 | B1 |
7778895 | Baxter et al. | Aug 2010 | B1 |
7788195 | Subrannanian | Aug 2010 | B1 |
7805343 | Lyons et al. | Sep 2010 | B1 |
7818222 | Allanson et al. | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7836406 | Kirsten et al. | Nov 2010 | B1 |
7848971 | Mori et al. | Dec 2010 | B1 |
7853494 | Wyle | Dec 2010 | B2 |
7860763 | Quinn et al. | Dec 2010 | B1 |
7860774 | Peterson et al. | Dec 2010 | B1 |
7870491 | Henderson | Jan 2011 | B1 |
7890442 | Weir et al. | Feb 2011 | B2 |
7899757 | Talan | Mar 2011 | B1 |
7904356 | Cobarrubia | Mar 2011 | B1 |
7912767 | Cheatham et al. | Mar 2011 | B1 |
7917411 | Bedell | Mar 2011 | B1 |
7917412 | Wang | Mar 2011 | B1 |
7930226 | Quinn et al. | Apr 2011 | B1 |
7984004 | Andrew et al. | Jul 2011 | B2 |
8001006 | Yu et al. | Aug 2011 | B1 |
8014308 | Gates, III | Sep 2011 | B2 |
8019664 | Tifford et al. | Sep 2011 | B1 |
8024660 | Quinn | Sep 2011 | B1 |
8050988 | Kershner et al. | Nov 2011 | B2 |
8095476 | Bierner et al. | Jan 2012 | B2 |
8099329 | Paulsen | Jan 2012 | B2 |
8108258 | Slattery | Jan 2012 | B1 |
8126716 | Dhanakshirur | Feb 2012 | B2 |
8126787 | Leek et al. | Feb 2012 | B1 |
8190499 | McVickar | May 2012 | B1 |
8204805 | Eftekhari et al. | Jun 2012 | B2 |
8326754 | Bandych | Dec 2012 | B2 |
8346635 | Olim | Jan 2013 | B1 |
8355966 | Vu et al. | Jan 2013 | B1 |
8407113 | Eftekhari et al. | Mar 2013 | B1 |
8417596 | Dunbar et al. | Apr 2013 | B1 |
8417715 | Bruckhaus et al. | Apr 2013 | B1 |
8418920 | Lieberman et al. | Apr 2013 | B2 |
8423444 | Mackrell et al. | Apr 2013 | B1 |
8429184 | Ismon | Apr 2013 | B2 |
8433627 | Agee et al. | Apr 2013 | B2 |
8447667 | Dinamani et al. | May 2013 | B1 |
8452676 | Tan et al. | May 2013 | B1 |
8468110 | Podgorny | Jun 2013 | B1 |
8504582 | Soetarman | Aug 2013 | B2 |
8527375 | Olim | Sep 2013 | B1 |
8583517 | Ohme | Nov 2013 | B1 |
8589262 | Wang | Nov 2013 | B1 |
8606665 | Shaw | Dec 2013 | B1 |
8635127 | Shaw | Jan 2014 | B1 |
8656273 | Tifford et al. | Feb 2014 | B1 |
8682756 | Tifford et al. | Mar 2014 | B1 |
8689262 | Yamamura | Apr 2014 | B2 |
8694397 | Seubert et al. | Apr 2014 | B2 |
8719120 | McVickar et al. | May 2014 | B1 |
8812380 | Murray et al. | Aug 2014 | B2 |
8857713 | Lieberman et al. | Oct 2014 | B2 |
8874731 | Puppin | Oct 2014 | B1 |
8903810 | Ismon | Dec 2014 | B2 |
8942999 | Fernando et al. | Jan 2015 | B1 |
9037962 | Vassar et al. | May 2015 | B1 |
9069869 | Quinn et al. | Jun 2015 | B1 |
9098586 | Latif | Aug 2015 | B1 |
9117247 | Lieberman et al. | Aug 2015 | B2 |
9153141 | Kane, Jr. | Oct 2015 | B1 |
9201558 | Dingman | Dec 2015 | B1 |
9280252 | Brandmer et al. | Mar 2016 | B1 |
9286282 | Ling, III | Mar 2016 | B2 |
9390402 | Kane, Jr. | Jul 2016 | B1 |
9406089 | Mori et al. | Aug 2016 | B2 |
9412017 | Huang et al. | Aug 2016 | B1 |
9444824 | Bazs et al. | Sep 2016 | B1 |
9690854 | Stent | Jun 2017 | B2 |
9734136 | Mody et al. | Aug 2017 | B1 |
9779129 | Lequeux | Oct 2017 | B1 |
9786017 | Ohme et al. | Oct 2017 | B1 |
9787597 | Miller et al. | Oct 2017 | B1 |
10140666 | Wang | Nov 2018 | B1 |
10475133 | Cabrera | Nov 2019 | B1 |
20020002546 | Doerr et al. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020015056 | Weinlaender | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020052774 | Parker et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020093529 | Daoud | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020111888 | Stanley et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020111890 | Sloan et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20030050876 | Tawara et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030069882 | Nieswand et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030115259 | Narayanan | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20040078271 | Morano et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040254927 | Lang et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050027632 | Zeitoun et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050038722 | Throndson et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050043998 | Bross et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050054381 | Lee | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050060174 | Heyward et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050144072 | Perkowski | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050160103 | Raffo | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050210024 | HurstHiller | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050246234 | Munyon | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050278221 | Hahn-Carlson et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050289023 | Hahn-Carlson et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050289024 | Hahn-Carlson et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060085304 | Buarque De Macedo et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060085306 | Schulte et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060122918 | Graboske et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060155632 | Cherkas et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060178961 | Stanley et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060184410 | Ramamurthy | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060206454 | Forstl et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060287890 | Stead | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070033116 | Murray | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070055571 | Fox | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070061128 | Odom | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070136115 | Senturk et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070250418 | Banks et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20080027895 | Combaz | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080027979 | Chandrasekar et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080059900 | Murray et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080065617 | Burke et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080104045 | Cohen | May 2008 | A1 |
20080119134 | Rao | May 2008 | A1 |
20080147494 | Larson | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080189197 | Ianson et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080189757 | Schackow et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080196098 | Cottrell | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080201206 | Pokorney | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080263643 | Jaiswal | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080288304 | Nores | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20090012884 | Harman et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090031042 | Phatak | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090076335 | Schwarzberg et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090099959 | Liao | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090234684 | Stoke et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090276374 | Viner | Nov 2009 | A1 |
20090307159 | Pinckney et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100010849 | Hurd | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100017348 | Pinckney et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100023934 | Sheehan et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100146523 | Brigaut et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100251305 | Kimble et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100262495 | Dumon et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20100274606 | Fain et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20100312724 | Pinckney | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20100332362 | Ramsey et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20110004537 | Ianson et al. | Jan 2011 | A1 |
20110022502 | Evans | Jan 2011 | A1 |
20110066602 | Studer | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110078066 | Sherman et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110119264 | Hu et al. | May 2011 | A1 |
20110137776 | Goad et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110173222 | Sayal | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20110258195 | Welling | Oct 2011 | A1 |
20110264569 | Houseworth et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
20110264570 | Houseworth | Oct 2011 | A1 |
20120030159 | Pilaszy et al. | Feb 2012 | A1 |
20120030767 | Rippert, Jr. | Feb 2012 | A1 |
20120053965 | Hellman et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120084185 | Ciaramitaro et al. | Apr 2012 | A1 |
20120109792 | Eftekhari | May 2012 | A1 |
20120136764 | Miller et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
20120211561 | Lieberman et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120215669 | Lieberman et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120278179 | Ray et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
20120303495 | Murray | Nov 2012 | A1 |
20120324393 | Mbenkum | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20130080302 | Ianson et al. | Mar 2013 | A1 |
20130091050 | Merrill | Apr 2013 | A1 |
20130124644 | Hunt et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
20130198047 | Houseworth et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130198287 | Raz | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130254151 | Mohagheghi et al. | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20130282539 | Murray | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20130282733 | Tawakol | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20130290200 | Singh | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20140027509 | Lieberman et al. | Jan 2014 | A1 |
20140032259 | LaFever | Jan 2014 | A1 |
20140068413 | Christensen | Mar 2014 | A1 |
20140101571 | Lewis | Apr 2014 | A1 |
20140114822 | Sharma | Apr 2014 | A1 |
20140156566 | Kabiljo et al. | Jun 2014 | A1 |
20140172656 | Shaw | Jun 2014 | A1 |
20140180883 | Regan | Jun 2014 | A1 |
20140201045 | Pai et al. | Jul 2014 | A1 |
20140201108 | Chapman | Jul 2014 | A1 |
20140214636 | Rajsky | Jul 2014 | A1 |
20140222702 | Jennings | Aug 2014 | A1 |
20140244455 | Huang et al. | Aug 2014 | A1 |
20140244456 | Huang et al. | Aug 2014 | A1 |
20140248063 | Chourasia | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140279190 | Severinghaus et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140314225 | Riahi et al. | Oct 2014 | A1 |
20140324648 | Mori et al. | Oct 2014 | A1 |
20140325664 | Nekhoroshev | Oct 2014 | A1 |
20140337189 | Barsade et al. | Nov 2014 | A1 |
20140337753 | McKellar et al. | Nov 2014 | A1 |
20150007065 | Krishnamoorthy | Jan 2015 | A1 |
20150026146 | Mance | Jan 2015 | A1 |
20150066719 | Argrawal | Mar 2015 | A1 |
20150081470 | Westphal | Mar 2015 | A1 |
20150101599 | Berry | Apr 2015 | A1 |
20150149877 | Ling, III | May 2015 | A1 |
20150178371 | Seth | Jun 2015 | A1 |
20150332167 | Kaush et al. | Nov 2015 | A1 |
20150363875 | Guerry | Dec 2015 | A1 |
20150379631 | Singh | Dec 2015 | A1 |
20160034853 | Wang | Feb 2016 | A1 |
20160180248 | Regan | Feb 2016 | A1 |
20160071112 | Unser | Mar 2016 | A1 |
20160078567 | Goldman et al. | Mar 2016 | A1 |
20160098804 | Mascaro et al. | Apr 2016 | A1 |
20160125552 | Pathak et al. | May 2016 | A1 |
20160148322 | Mascaro et al. | May 2016 | A1 |
20160180470 | Mascaro et al. | Jun 2016 | A1 |
20160217533 | Laaser | Jul 2016 | A1 |
20160217534 | Goldman et al. | Jul 2016 | A1 |
20160246762 | Eaton | Aug 2016 | A1 |
20160247239 | Houseworth et al. | Aug 2016 | A1 |
20160275627 | Wang et al. | Sep 2016 | A1 |
20160328804 | Mori et al. | Nov 2016 | A1 |
20160328805 | Mori et al. | Nov 2016 | A1 |
20160328806 | Mori et al. | Nov 2016 | A1 |
20170004585 | Dang et al. | Jan 2017 | A1 |
20170104841 | Duke | Apr 2017 | A1 |
20170132314 | Liu et al. | May 2017 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
3535729 | Sep 2019 | EP |
2002-099613 | Apr 2002 | JP |
10-2009-0089225 | Aug 2009 | KR |
10-2013-0027811 | Mar 2013 | KR |
WO 2004008367 | Jan 2004 | WO |
Entry |
---|
web.archive.org/web/20100919125845/http://cpaclass.com/tax-accounting/tax-law/internal-revenue-code/26-usc-section/196.htm, CPA class, U.S. Tax Laws Internal Revenue Code, Sep. 19, 2010 (Year: 2010). |
PCT International Search Report for PCT/US2014/056516, Applicant: Intuit Inc., Form PCT/ISA/210 and 220, dated Jun. 18, 2015 (5pages). |
PCT Written Opinion of the International Search Authority for PCT/US2014/056516, Applicant: Intuit Inc., Form PCT/ISA/237, dated Jun. 18, 2015 (9pages). |
Interview Summary dated Oct. 1, 2014 in U.S. Appl. No. 12/891,607, filed Sep. 27, 2010 (2 pages). |
Amendment filed Sep. 30, 2014 in U.S. Appl. No. 12/891,607, filed Sep. 27, 2010 (15 pages). |
Office Action dated Jun. 30, 2014 in U.S. Appl. No. 12/891,607, filed Sep. 27, 2010 (18 pages). |
Amendment filed Dec. 14, 2012 in U.S. Appl. No. 12/891,607, filed Sep. 27, 2010 (25 pages). |
Final Office Action dated Sep. 14, 2012 in U.S. Appl. No. 12/891,607, filed Sep. 27, 2010 (20 pages). |
Interview Summary dated Aug. 13, 2012 in U.S. Appl. No. 12/891,607, filed Sep. 27, 2010 (2 pages). |
Amendment filed Aug. 3, 2012 in U.S. Appl. No. 12/891,607, filed Sep. 27, 2010 (15 pages). |
Office Action dated May 4, 2012 in U.S. Appl. No. 12/891,607, filed Sep. 27, 2010 (17 pages). |
http://www.gartner.com/it-glossary/predictive-modeling, printed Oct. 27, 2014 (1 page). |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_modelling, printed Oct. 27, 2014 (8 pages). |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_analytics, printed Oct. 27, 2014 (18 pages). |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naive_Bayes_classifier, printed Oct. 27, 2014 (14 pages). |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-nearest_neighbors_algorithm, printed Oct. 27, 2014 (10 pages). |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_neural_network, printed Oct. 27, 2014 (22 pages). |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_regression, printed Oct. 27, 2014 (28 pages). |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_forest, printed Oct. 27, 2014 (7 pages). |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gradient_boosting, printed Oct. 27, 2014 (8 pages). |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-d_tree, printed Oct. 27, 2014 (10 pages). |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Support_vector_machine, printed Oct. 27, 2014 (16 pages). |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalized_linear_model, printed Oct. 27, 2014 (13 pages). |
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/ba-predictive-analytics2/, printed Oct. 27, 2014 (8 pages). |
PCT International Preliminary Report on Patentability (Chapter I of the Patent Cooperation Treaty) for PCT/US2014/056516, Applicant: Intuit Inc., Form PCT/IB/326 and 373, dated Mar. 23, 2017 (11pages). |
Australian Office Action dated Nov. 8, 2018 issued in Australian Application No. 20144058856. |
Canadian Office Action dated Nov. 22, 2018 issued in Canadian Application No. 2,960,788. |
English Language Abstract of JP 2002-099613 published Apr. 5, 2002. |
English Language Abstract of KR 10-2009-0089225 published Aug. 21, 2009. |
“Modular Programming,” Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, Jul. 29, 2014, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/ index.php?title=Modular_programming&oldid=618953117, retrieved from the Internet on Mar. 31, 2015, 4 pgs. |
Anders, B. Susan; “Website of the Month: MSN Money Tax Center,” Apr. 2013, The CPA Journal, pp. 72-73. |
Forsati, R.; “Web Page Personalization Based on Weighted Association Rules,” 2009 International Conference on Electronic Computer Technology, pp. 130-135. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declarative_programming, printed Oct. 27, 2014, 4 pgs. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperative_programming, printed Oct. 27, 2014 (4 pgs. |
http://vwvw.forbes.com/sites/danwoods/2013/04/171why-adopti ng-the-declarative-programm ing-practices-will-im prove-your-return-from-technology/, printed Oct. 27, 2014, 8 pgs. |
Publication 559: Final Income Tax Return for Decedent—Form 1040, p. 2, paragraph 2; https://taxmap.ntis.gov/taxmap/pub/p559-001.htm; retrieved from the Internet Jul. 11, 2017. |
Zhang, Zhenya, et al.; “Enabling Personalization Recommendation with WeightedFP for Text Information Retrieval Based on User-Focus,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Technology: Coding and Computing (ITCC'04), 5 pgs. |
“QuickBooks® Assessing the Health of the Data File and Troubleshooting”, The Sleeter Group, Aug. 2005, 71 pgs. |
U.S. Appl. No. 14/530,305, filed Oct. 31, 2014. |
U.S. Appl. No. 14/530,369, filed Oct. 31, 2014. |
U.S. Appl. No. 14/698,645, filed Apr. 28, 2015. |
U.S. Appl. No. 14/607,935, filed Jan. 28, 2015. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/475,767, filed Jun. 1, 2009. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/413,308, filed Apr. 28, 2006. |
U.S. Appl. No. 14/674,582, filed Mar. 31, 2015. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/164,777, filed May 25, 2016. |
U.S. Appl. No. 14/925,633, filed Oct. 28, 2015. |
U.S. Appl. No. 14/698,683, filed Apr. 28, 2015. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/413,308, filed Apr. 28, 2006, Issued. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/475,767, filed Jun. 1, 2009, Abandoned. |
U.S. Appl. No. 14/530,305, filed Oct. 31, 2014, Issued. |
U.S. Appl. No. 14/530,369, filed Oct. 31, 2014, Issued. |
U.S. Appl. No. 14/607,935, filed Jan. 28, 2015, Abandoned. |
U.S. Appl. No. 14/698,683, filed Apr. 28, 2015, Pending. |
U.S. Appl. No. 14/674,582, filed Mar. 31, 2015, Abandoned. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/164,777, filed May 25, 2016, Issued. |
U.S. Appl. No. 14/871,366, filed Sep. 30, 2015, Pending. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/363,681, filed Nov. 29, 2016, Pending. |
U.S. Appl. No. 14/925,633, filed Oct. 28, 2015, Pending. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/295,417, filed Mar. 7, 2019, Pending. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/524,825, filed Jul. 29, 2019, Pending. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/295,417, filed Mar. 7, 2019. |
Caplan, Robert M. , “IRS Announces Release Data for 1040 Modernized E-File Program”, Dec. 31, 2017, 2 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/363,681, filed Nov. 29, 2016. |
Pooch, “Translation of Decision Tables”, Computing Surveys, vol. 6, No. 2, Jun. 1974, pp. 125-151. |
Gregg, “Decision Tables for Documentation and Systems Analysis”, Mathematics and Computers, No. K-1718, Oct. 3, 1967, 25 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 16/524,825, filed Jul. 29, 2019. |
U.S. Appl. No. 14/871,366, filed Sep. 30, 2015. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20160078567 A1 | Mar 2016 | US |