Systems, methods and articles of manufacture for determining relevancy of tax topics in a tax preparation system

Description

SUMMARY

Embodiments of the present invention are directed to methods, systems and articles of manufacture for identifying tax topics relevant to a particular taxpayer and prioritizing the tax topics by analyzing a taxpayer data profile regarding the taxpayer in relation to tax data profiles in a tax topic relevancy module.

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 are 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 tax matters (e.g. tax topics, tax questions, etc.) for which tax questions are 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 includes 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 suggested tax matters for obtaining 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 tax matter 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 one embodiment of the present invention, the tax preparation system is further configured to determine the relevancy of tax matters to a particular taxpayer and to prioritize the tax topics by computing and analyzing a taxpayer data profile regarding the taxpayer in relation to tax data profiles in a tax topic relevancy module. Accordingly, the tax preparation system further comprises a tax matter relevancy module having a plurality of tax data profiles and logic based correlations. The tax data profiles comprise a plurality of individual profiles, wherein each individual profile has various individual/personal attributes, such as age, geographic location, etc., and tax return related data, for the particular individual. The individual attributes and tax return related data may overlap (i.e. some data may be both an individual attribute and tax return related data), such as a person's income, which is an personal attribute and is also related to the tax return for such person. As used herein, the term individual may include any entity which can be a taxpayer, including a single person, joint tax filers, an entity such as a corporation, partnership, etc., unless the context requires otherwise. For example, the individual profiles may comprise tax data of a large number of taxpayers accessed by any suitable method. The individual profiles can each be a data record having pertinent data from a tax return for a particular taxpayer.

The tax data profiles may be, in addition to, or alternative to, the individual profiles, pre-defined profiles created by analyzing tax data and/or other data having taxpayer attributes associated with tax related data. For instance, pre-defined profiles might be created for particular classes of individuals having similar characteristics, such as a profile having a particular range of age, income, geographic location, profession, having children or no children, retirement contributions, etc.

The logic based correlations are correlations between one or more taxpayer attributes and a tax related aspect based on a logical derivation and not on analysis of data. For example, a logic based correlation may be a correlation that a taxpayer who is married will require spouse information, or taxpayer having no dependents will not require information related to dependents and/or information related to certain deductions such as the child care deduction.

The tax preparation system is also configured to access tax data regarding the taxpayer and then generate a taxpayer data profile using the taxpayer data.

In addition to evaluating missing tax data needed to prepare the tax return for the taxpayer and determine suggested tax matters for obtaining the missing tax data, the tax logic agent is further configured to analyze the taxpayer data profile in relation to the tax data profiles in the tax topic relevancy module. The tax logic agent determines a relevancy ranking for each of the suggested tax matters. The relevancy ranking is an indication of the predicted relevancy of the respective tax matter to the taxpayer. The tax logic agent then outputs the suggested tax matters and corresponding relevancy rankings to the user interface manager.

The user interface manager is further configured to receive the suggested tax matters and the corresponding relevancy rankings. The user interface manager determines one or more tax questions to present to a user based at least partially upon the suggested tax matters and corresponding relevancy rankings.

In another aspect of system for determining relevancy and prioritizing suggested tax matters during preparation of a tax return, the tax return preparation system may be configured to update the taxpayer data profile, suggested tax matters and relevancy rankings as more tax data regarding the taxpayer is received. Accordingly, the system is configured to present the one or more tax questions determined by the user interface manager to the user. The system receives new tax data for the taxpayer in response to the tax questions. The system updates the taxpayer data profile using the new tax data and generates an updated taxpayer data profile.

The tax logic agent evaluates missing tax data after the new tax data is received and determines a second plurality of suggested tax matters. The tax logic agent is further configured to analyze the updated taxpayer data profile in relation to the tax data profiles in the tax matter relevancy module. The tax logic agent determines a relevancy ranking for each of the second plurality of suggested tax matters. The tax logic agent then outputs the second plurality of suggested tax matters and corresponding relevancy rankings to the user interface manager. This process may be repeated until all required tax data has been received and the tax return is completed.

Accordingly, the tax preparation system 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. The system present to the user the tax matters which are more likely to be relevant to the particular taxpayer, rather than treating all taxpayers alike and presenting most or all tax matters during the preparation of every tax return.

Another embodiment of the present invention is directed to computer-implemented methods for determining the relevancy of tax matters to a particular taxpayer and prioritizing the tax matters by computing and analyzing a taxpayer data profile regarding the taxpayer in relation to tax data profiles in a tax topic relevancy module. For example, the method may comprise a tax preparation system, same or similar to that described above, executing the tax preparation software application to access taxpayer data and generating a taxpayer data profile using the taxpayer data.

The tax logic agent evaluates missing tax data needed to prepare the tax return for the first taxpayer and determines a plurality of suggested tax matters for obtaining the missing tax data. The tax logic agent analyzes the taxpayer data profile in relation to the tax data profiles in the tax matter relevancy module and determines a relevancy ranking for each of the suggested tax matters. The tax logic agent outputs the plurality of suggested tax matters and corresponding relevancy rankings to the user interface manager

The user interface manager receives the plurality of suggested tax matters and corresponding relevancy rankings and determines one or more tax questions to present to a user based at least upon the suggested tax matters and corresponding relevancy rankings.

In additional aspects of the present invention, the computer-implemented methods may also include any of the additional aspects described herein for the tax preparation system for determining the relevancy of tax matters to a particular taxpayer and prioritizing the tax matters.

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 determining the relevancy of tax matters to a particular taxpayer and prioritizing the tax matters to be presented to a user of a tax preparation system For instance, the non-transitory computer readable medium embodying instructions executable by a computer may be configured to execute a process comprising: a tax preparation system, same or similar to the system described above, accessing taxpayer data comprising at least one of personal information and tax data regarding a taxpayer; generating a taxpayer data profile using the taxpayer data regarding the taxpayer; executing a tax logic agent to evaluate missing tax data needed to prepare the tax return and determining a plurality of suggested tax matters for obtaining the missing tax data; the tax logic agent analyzing the tax payer data profile in relation to the tax data profiles in a tax matter relevancy module and determining a relevancy ranking for each of the suggested tax matters; the tax logic agent outputting the plurality of suggested tax matters and corresponding relevancy rankings to a user interface manager; and the user interface manager receiving the plurality of suggested tax matters and corresponding relevancy rankings and determining one or more tax questions to a user based at least partially upon the suggested tax matters and corresponding relevancy rankings.

In additional aspects, the article of manufacture may be further configured according to the additional aspects described above for the systems and methods for determining the relevancy of tax matters to a particular taxpayer and prioritizing the tax matters.

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.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 schematically illustrates how tax legislation/tax rules is parsed and represented by a completeness graph and a tax calculation graph.

FIG. 2 illustrates an example of a simplified version of a completeness graph related to a qualifying child for purposes of determining deductions for federal income tax purposes.

FIG. 3 illustrates another illustration of a completeness graph.

FIG. 4 illustrates a decision table based on or derived from the completeness graph of FIG. 3.

FIG. 5 illustrates another embodiment of a decision table that incorporates statistical data.

FIG. 6 illustrates an example of a calculation graph according to one embodiment.

FIG. 7 schematically illustrates a system for calculating taxes using rules and calculations based on declarative data structures.

FIG. 8 schematically illustrates another system for calculating taxes using rules and calculations based on a declarative data structures.

FIG. 9 illustrates components of a computing device that may be utilized to execute software method of tagging tax-related events.

FIG. 10 illustrates a computing device with an illustrative user interface presentation that incorporates the attribute rules to arrive at a confidence level for tax calculations.

FIG. 11 illustrates a computing device with another illustrative user interface presentation that incorporates the attribute rules to arrive at a confidence level for tax calculations.

FIG. 12 illustrates a flowchart of operations used in connection with a method of calculating tax liability according to one embodiment.

FIG. 13 illustrates the implementation of tax preparation software on various computing devices.

FIG. 14 schematically illustrates a process whereby a combination of user inputs, sourced data, and estimates are used in connection with a tax calculation.

FIG. 15 illustrates generally the components of a computing device that may be utilized to execute the software for automatically calculating or determining tax liability and preparing a tax return based thereon.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF ILLUSTRATED EMBODIMENTS

Embodiments of the present invention are directed to methods, systems and articles of manufacture for determining the relevancy of tax matters to a particular taxpayer and prioritizing the tax matters in a tax preparation system for preparing an electronic tax return. Generally, a computerized tax return preparation system accesses taxpayer data and generates a taxpayer data profile using the taxpayer data regarding the taxpayer, which may include taxpayer age, address, home information, marital status, income information, etc. The system executes at tax logic agent which evaluates missing tax data required to prepare the tax return for the taxpayer and outputs a plurality of suggested tax matters for obtaining the missing tax data to a user interface manager. The tax logic agent utilizes the taxpayer data profile and a tax matter relevancy module having a plurality of tax data profiles to determine a relevancy ranking for each suggested tax matter. A user interface manager receives the suggested tax matters and the corresponding relevancy rankings and determines one or more tax questions to present to the user based on the suggest tax matters and corresponding relevancy rankings.

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 contrast to the rigidly defined user interface screens used in prior iterations of tax preparation software, the current invention provides 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.

FIG. 1 illustrates graphically how tax legislation/tax rules 10 are broken down into a completeness graph 12 and a tax calculation graph 14. In one aspect of the invention, tax legislation or rules 10 are parsed or broken into various topics. For example, there may be nearly one hundred topics that need to be covered for completing a federal tax return. When one considers both federal and state tax returns, there can be well over one hundred tax topics that need to be covered. When tax legislation or tax rules 10 are broken into various topics or sub-topics, in one embodiment of the invention, each particular topic (e.g., topics A, B) may each have their own dedicated completeness graph 12A, 12B and tax calculation graph 14A, 14B as seen in FIG. 1.

Note that in FIG. 1, the completeness graph 12 and the tax calculation graph 14 are interdependent as illustrated by dashed line 16. That is to say, some elements contained within the completeness graph 12 are needed to perform actual tax calculations using the tax calculation graph 14. Likewise, aspects within the tax calculation graph 14 may be needed as part of the completion graph 12. Taken collectively, the completeness graph 12 and the tax calculation graph 14 represent data structures that capture all the conditions necessary to complete the computations that are required to complete a tax return that can be filed. Individual combinations of completeness graphs 12 and tax calculation graphs 14 that relate to one or more topics can be used complete the computations required for some sub-calculation. In the context of a tax setting, for example, a sub-selection of topical completeness graphs 12 and tax calculation graphs 14 can be used for intermediate tax results such as Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) or Taxable Income (TI).

The completeness graph 12 and the tax calculation graph 14 represent data structures that can be constructed in the form of tree. FIG. 2 illustrates a completeness graph 12 in the form of a tree with nodes 20 and arcs 22 representing a basic or general version of a completeness graph 12 for the topic of determining whether a child qualifies as a dependent for federal income tax purposes. A more complete flow chart-based representation of questions related to determining a “qualified child” may be found in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/097,057, which is incorporated by reference herein. Each node 20 contains a condition that in this example is expressed as a Boolean expression that can be answered in the affirmative or negative. The arcs 22 that connect each node 20 illustrate the dependencies between nodes 20. The combination of arcs 22 in the completeness graph 12 illustrates the various pathways to completion. A single arc 22 or combination of arcs 22 that result in a determination of “Done” represent a pathway to completion. As seen in FIG. 2, there are several pathways to completion. For example, one pathway to completion is where an affirmative (True) answer is given to the question of whether you or a spouse can be claimed on someone else's tax return. If such a condition is true, your child is not a qualifying dependent because under IRS rules you cannot claim any dependents if someone else can claim you as a dependent. In another example, if you had a child and that child did not live with you for more than 6 months of the year, then your child is not a qualifying dependent. Again, this is a separate IRS requirement for a qualified dependent.

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.

FIG. 3 illustrates another example of a completeness graph 12 that includes a beginning node 20a (Node A), intermediate nodes 20b-g (Nodes B-G) and a termination node 20y (Node “Yes” or “Done”). Each of the beginning node 20a and intermediate nodes 20a-g represents a question. Inter-node connections or arcs 22 represent response options. In the illustrated embodiment, each inter-node connection 22 represents an answer or response option in binary form (Y/N), for instance, a response to a Boolean expression. It will be understood, however, that embodiments are not so limited, and that a binary response form is provided as a non-limiting example. In the illustrated example, certain nodes, such as nodes A, B and E, have two response options 22, whereas other nodes, such as nodes D, G and F, have one response option 22.

As explained herein, the directed graph or completion graph 12 that is illustrated in FIG. 3 can be traversed through all possible paths from the start node 20a to the termination node 20y. By navigating various paths through the completion graph 12 in a recursive manner can determine each path from the beginning node 20a to the termination node 20y. The completion graph 12 along with the pathways to completion through the graph can be converted into a different data structure or format. In the illustrated embodiment shown in FIG. 4, this different data structure or format is in the form of a decision table 30. In the illustrated example, the decision table 30 includes rows 32 (five rows 32a-e are illustrated) based on the paths through the completion graph 12. In the illustrated embodiment, the columns 34a-g of the completion graph represent expressions for each of the questions (represented as nodes A-G in FIG. 3) and answers derived from completion paths through the completion graph 12 and column 34h indicates a conclusion, determination, result or goal 34h concerning a tax topic or situation, e.g., “Yes—your child is a qualifying child” or “No—your child is not a qualifying child.”

Referring to FIG. 4, each row 32 of the decision table 30 represents a tax rule. The decision table 30, for example, may be associated with a federal tax rule or a state tax rule. In some instances, for example, a state tax rule may include the same decision table 30 as the federal tax rule. The decision table 30 can be used, as explained herein, to drive a personalized interview process for the user of tax preparation software 100. In particular, the decision table 30 is used to select a question or questions to present to a user during an interview process. In this particular example, in the context of the completion graph from FIG. 3 converted into the decision table 30 of FIG. 4, if the first question presented to the user during an interview process is question “A” and the user answers “Yes” rows 32c-e may be eliminated from consideration given that no pathway to completion is possible. The tax rule associated with these columns cannot be satisfied given the input of “Yes” in question “A.” Note that those cell entries denoted by “?” represent those answers to a particular question in a node that is irrelevant to the particular pathway to completion. Thus, for example, referring to row 34a, when an answer to Q_Ais “Y” and a path is completed through the completion graph 12 by answering Question C as “N” then answers to the other questions in Nodes B and D-F are “?” since they are not needed to be answered given that particular path.

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 Q_Cand Q_Gin 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.

FIG. 5 illustrates another embodiment of a decision table 30. In this embodiment, the decision table 30 includes additional statistical data 36 associated with each rule (e.g., rules R₁-R₆). For example, the statistical data 36 may represent a percentage or the like in which a particular demographic or category of user(s) satisfies this particular path to completion. The statistical data 36 may be mined from existing or current year tax filings. The statistical data 36 may be obtained from a proprietary source of data such as tax filing data owned by Intuit, Inc. The statistical data 36 may be third party data that can be purchased or leased for use. For example, the statistical data 36 may be obtained from a government taxing authority or the like (e.g., IRS). In one aspect, the statistical data 36 does not necessarily relate specifically to the individual or individuals preparing the particular tax return. For example, the statistical data 36 may be obtained based on a number of tax filers which is then classified one or more classifications. For example, statistical data 36 can be organized with respect to age, type of tax filing (e.g., joint, separate, married filing separately), income range (gross, AGI, or TI), deduction type, geographic location, and the like).

FIG. 5 illustrates two such columns 38a, 38b in the decision table 30 that contain statistical data 36 in the form of percentages. For example, column 38a (STAT1) may contain a percentage value that indicates taxpayers under the age of thirty-five where Rule₁is satisfied. Column 38b (STAT2) may contain a percentage value that indicates taxpayers over the age of thirty-five where Rule₁is satisfied. Any number of additional columns 38 could be added to the decision table 30 and the statistics do not have to relate to an age threshold or grouping. The statistical data 36 may be used, as explained in more detail below, by the tax preparation software 100 to determine which of the candidate questions (Q_A-Q_G) should be asked to a taxpayer. The statistical data 36 may be compared to one or more known taxpayer data fields (e.g., age, income level, tax filing status, geographic location, or the like) such that the question that is presented to the user is most likely to lead to a path to completion. Candidate questions may also be excluded or grouped together and then presented to the user to efficiently minimize tax interview questions during the data acquisition process. For example, questions that are likely to be answered in the negative can be grouped together and presented to the user in a grouping and asked in the negative—for example, “we think these question do not apply to you, please confirm that this is correct.” This enables the elimination of many pathways to completion that can optimize additional data requests of the taxpayer.

FIG. 6 illustrates an example of a tax calculation graph 14. The tax calculation graph semantically describes the tax legislation/tax rules 10. In FIG. 6, various nodes 24 are leaf or input nodes. Examples of leaf nodes 24 in this particular example include data obtained from W-2 forms, data obtained from 1099-INT forms, data obtained from other investment income, filing status, and number of dependents. Typically, though not exclusively, leaf nodes 24 are populated with user inputs. That is to say the user taxpayer will enter this information from a user interface. In other embodiments, however, the leaf nodes 24 may be populated with information that is automatically obtained by the tax preparation software 100. For example, in some embodiments, tax documents may be imaged or scanned with relevant data being automatically extracted using Object Character Recognition (OCR) techniques. In other embodiments, prior tax returns may be used by the tax preparation software 100 to extract information (e.g., name, potential dependents, address, and social security number) which can then be used to populate the leaf nodes 24. Online resources such as financial services websites or other user-specific websites can be crawled and scanned to scrap or otherwise download tax related information that can be automatically populated into leaf nodes 24. Additional third party information sources such as credit bureaus, government databases, and the like can also be used by the tax preparation software 100 to obtain information that can then be populated in to respective leaf nodes 24. In still other embodiments, values for leaf nodes 24 may be derived or otherwise calculated. For example, while the number of dependents may be manually entered by a taxpayer, those dependents may not all be “qualifying” dependents for tax purposes. In such instances, the actual number of “qualified” dependents may be derived or calculated by the tax preparation software 100. In still other embodiments, values for leaf nodes 24 may be estimated as described herein.

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 FIG. 6. It should be understood that nodes within completion graph 12 and the tax calculation graph 14 may be shared in some instances. For example, AGI is a re-occurring tax concept that occurs in many places in the tax code. AGI is used not only for the mathematical computation of taxes is also used, for example, to determine eligibility of certain tax deductions and credits. Thus, the AGI node is common to both the completion graph 12 and the tax calculation graph 14.

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 FIG. 6, FIG. 6 shows two exemplary calculation paths 27a and 27b, which interconnect nodes having data dependencies. Some or all of the data dependencies may be gists, as described above. The two calculation paths 27a and 27b intersect at the “accumulator” 28a, and are thereafter coincident as calculation path 27c.

FIG. 7 schematically illustrates a tax return preparation system 40 for calculating taxes using rules and calculations based on declarative data structures according to one embodiment. The system 40 include a shared data store 42 that contains therein a schema 44 or canonical model representative to the data fields utilized or otherwise required to complete a tax return. The shared data store 42 may be a repository, file, or database that is used to contain the tax-related data fields. The shared data store 42 is accessible by a computing device 102, 103 as described herein. The shared data store 42 may be located on the computing device 102, 103 running the tax preparation software 100 or it may be located remotely, for example, in cloud environment on another, remotely located computer. The schema 44 may include, for example, a schema based on the Modernized e-File (MeF) system developed by the Internal Revenue Service. The MeF is a web-based system that allows electronic filing of tax returns through the Internet. MeF uses extensible markup language (XML) format that is used when identifying, storing, and transmitting data. For example, each line or data element on a tax return is given an XML name tag as well as every instance of supporting data. Tax preparation software 100 uses XML schemas and business rules to electronically prepare and transmit tax returns to tax reporting agencies. Transmitters use the Internet to transmit electronic tax return data to the IRS MeF system. The IRS validates the transmitted files against the XML schemas and Business Rules in the MeF schema 44.

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. MeF and MeF+++ are only examples of tax agency standards for electronic filing of tax returns, and the present invention is not limited to any particular standard. Accordingly, any references to MeF or MeF++ in the specification or drawings includes any suitable standard for electronic filing of tax returns. 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, FIG. 7 illustrates several instances 46 of the MeF schema 44 (labeled as MeF₁, MeF₂, MeF_N). These instances 46 may be updated as additional data is input into the shared data store 42.

As seen in FIG. 7, the shared data store 42 may import data from one or more data sources 48. A number of data sources 48 may be used to import or otherwise transfer tax related data to the shared data store 42. The tax related data may include personal identification data such as a name, address, or taxpayer ID. Tax data may also relate to, for example, details regarding a taxpayer's employer(s) during a preceding tax year. This may include, employer name, employer federal ID, dates of employment, and the like. Tax related day may include residential history data (e.g., location of residence(s) in tax reporting period (state, county, city, etc.) as well as type of housing (e.g., rental unit or purchased home). Tax related information may also include dependent-related information such as the number of family members in a household including children. Tax related information may pertain to sources of income, including both earned and unearned income as well. Tax related information also include information that pertains to tax deductions or tax credits.

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 FIG. 7, user interface manager 82 contains an import module 89 that may be used to select what data sources 48 are automatically searched for tax related data. Import module 89 may be used as a permission manager that includes, for example, user account numbers and related passwords. The UI control 80 enables what sources 48 of data are searched or otherwise analyzed for tax related data. For example, a user may select prior year tax returns 48b to be searched but not online resources 48c. The tax data may flow through the UI control 80 directly as illustrated in FIG. 7 or, alternatively, the tax data may be routed directly to the shared data store 42. The import module 89 may also present prompts or questions to the user via a user interface presentation 84 generated by the user interface manager 82. For example, a question may ask the user to confirm the accuracy of the data. The user may also be given the option of whether or not to import the data from the data sources 48.

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 FIG. 7, another data source 48 includes sources of third party information 48d that may be accessed and retrieved. For example, credit reporting bureaus contain a rich source of data that may implicate one or more tax items. For example, credit reporting bureaus may show that a taxpayer has taken out a student loan or home mortgage loan that may be the source of possible tax deductions for the taxpayer. Other examples of sources of third party information 48d include government databases. For example, the state department of motor vehicles may contain information relevant to tax portion of vehicle registration fees which can be deductible in some instances. Other government databases that may be accessed include the IRS (e.g., IRS tax return transcripts), and state taxing authorities.

Still referring to FIG. 7, the tax return preparation software 100 executed by the computing device 102, 103 includes a tax calculation engine 50 that computes one or more tax calculations based on the tax calculation graph(s) 14 and the available data at any given instance within the schema 44 in the shared data store 42. The tax calculation engine 50 may calculate a final tax due amount, a final refund amount, or one or more intermediary calculations (e.g., taxable income, AGI, earned income, un-earned income, total deductions, total credits, alternative minimum tax (AMT) and the like). The tax calculation engine 50 utilizes the one or more calculation graphs 14 as described previously in the context of FIGS. 1 and 6. In one embodiment, a series of different calculation graphs 14 are used for respective tax topics. These different calculation graphs 14 may be coupled together or otherwise compiled as a composite calculation graph 14 to obtain an amount of taxes due or a refund amount based on the information contained in the shared data store 42. The tax calculation engine 50 reads the most current or up to date information contained within the shared data store 42 and then performs tax calculations. Updated tax calculation values are then written back to the shared data store 42. As the updated tax calculation values are written back, new instances 46 of the canonical model 46 are created. The tax calculations performed by the tax calculation engine 50 may include the calculation of an overall tax liability or refund due. The tax calculations may also include intermediate calculations used to determine an overall tax liability or refund due (e.g., AGI calculation).

Still referring to FIG. 7, the system 40 includes a tax logic agent (TLA) 60. The TLA 60 operates in conjunction with the shared data store 42 whereby updated tax data represented by instances 46 are read to the TLA 60. The TLA 60 contains run time data 62 that is read from the shared data store 42. The run time data 62 represents the instantiated representation of the canonical tax schema 44 at runtime. The TLA 60 may contain therein a rule engine 64 that utilizes a fact cache to generate either non-binding suggestions 66 for additional question(s) to present to a user or “Done” instructions 68 which indicate that completeness has occurred and additional input is not needed. The non-binding suggestions 66 may be tax topics, tax questions, declarative statements regarding the tax return, and/or confirmation regarding the tax return that are output by the tax logic agent, and are referred to collectively as “tax matters.” The rule engine 64 may operate in the form a Drools expert engine. Other declarative rules engines 64 may be utilized and a Drools expert rule engine 64 is provided as one example of how embodiments may be implemented. The TLA 60 may be implemented as a dedicated module contained within the tax preparation software 100.

As seen in FIG. 7, The TLA 60 uses the decision tables 30 to analyze the run time data 62 and determine whether a tax return is complete. Each decision table 30 created for each topic or sub-topic is scanned or otherwise analyzed to determine completeness for each particular topic or sub-topic. In the event that completeness has been determined with respect to each decision table 30, then the rule engine 64 outputs a “done” instruction 68 to the UI control 80. If the rule engine 64 does not output a “done” instruction 68 that means there are one or more topics or sub-topics that are not complete, in which case, as explained in more detail below, the UI control 80 presents interview questions to a user for answer. The TLA 60 identifies a decision table 30 corresponding to one of the non-complete topics or sub-topics and, using the rule engine 64, identifies one or more non-binding suggestions 66 to present to the UI control 80. The non-binding suggestions 66 may include a listing or compilation of one or more questions (e.g., Q₁-Q₅as seen in FIG. 7) from the decision table 30. In some instances, the listing or compilation of questions may be ranked in order by rank. The ranking or listing may be weighted in order of importance, relevancy, confidence level, or the like, as discussed in more detail below. For example, a top ranked question may be a question that, based on the remaining rows (e.g., R₁-R₅) in a decision will most likely lead to a path to completion. As part of this ranking process, statistical information such as the STAT1, STAT2 percentages as illustrated in FIG. 5 may be used to augment or aid this ranking process. Questions may also be presented that are most likely to increase the confidence level of the calculated tax liability or refund amount. In this regard, for example, those questions that resolve data fields associated with low confidence values may, in some embodiments, be ranked higher.

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.:

Rule engine (64)/Tax Logic Agent (TLA) (60)

// initialization process

Load_Tax_Knowledge_Base;

Create_Fact_Cache; While (new_data_from_application)

- Insert_data_into_fact_cache;
  - collection=Execute_Tax_Rules; // collection is all the fired rules and corresponding conditions
  - suggestions=Generate_suggestions (collection);
- send_to_application(suggestions);

ZZZ The TLA 60 may also be configured to utilize information from a tax matter relevancy module 70 (see FIG. 7) to analyze and compute a taxpayer data profile regarding the particular taxpayer for whom the tax return is being prepared to determine the relevancy and rank the suggested tax matters relative to the taxpayer. The tax matter relevancy module 70 contains a plurality of tax data profiles and logic based tax correlations which the TLA 60 can analyze in relation to a taxpayer data profile to determine a relevancy ranking for each of the suggested tax matters. group

The tax data profiles comprises a plurality of individual profiles and/or pre-defined group profiles. Each individual profile is a data record for an individual and includes various individual/personal attributes, such as age, geographic location (such as residence address), employment description (i.e. profession), marital status, home ownership or renter status, number of dependents, etc. and tax return related data such as income, tax deductions, charitable deductions, social security benefits, investment income and losses, other line items on tax return forms and schedules, etc.

The individual profiles may be created from massive databases of personal and financial data, such as previously filed tax returns, social website data, financial institution databases, websites having personal and financial data, etc. The data utilized to create the individual profiles may also 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) obtained from logs of user sessions preparing tax returns on an electronic tax preparation system. The system 40 may be configured to analyze the data and create individual profiles for each individual upon which data is available. The system 40 may also search for additional data from any of the available data sources described herein to add additional data to each individual profile.

Each pre-defined group profile is a data record for a grouping of individuals having certain common characteristics or matching attributes and/or tax return related data. For example, group profiles may be created for particular classes of individuals grouped by various selections of common or similar attributes. For instance, a group profile may be created for individuals having several common attributes selected from a large list of attributes, such as age range, income range, geographic region or location, profession, retired or working, number of dependent aged children, types of investments, homeownership, renter status, etc. The group profiles can be created using the same data described above for creating the individual profiles. The group profile also includes a group relevancy index for a plurality of tax matters in which the group relevancy index for each tax matter is related to the likelihood that the tax matter is relevant to an individual within the group. As an example, the group relevancy index for a particular tax matter may be the percentage of individuals within the group profile for which the tax matter is relevant. In other words, the number of individuals for which the tax matter is relevant divided by the total number of individuals in the group.

The logic based correlations are correlations between one or more taxpayer attributes and a tax related aspect based on a logical derivation rather than being based on empirical data. For example, a logic based correlation may be a correlation that a taxpayer who is married will require spouse information, or a taxpayer having no dependents will not require information related to dependents and/or information related to certain deductions such as the child care deduction.

The tax preparation system 40 is configured to generate the taxpayer data profile for the particular taxpayer for which the tax return is being prepared. At the outset, the tax preparation system 40 accesses taxpayer data comprising personal information of the taxpayer and/or tax data for the taxpayer. This taxpayer data may be accessed by any suitable method, including the methods described for accessing the data sources 48, as described above. For example, if the taxpayer has previously prepared a tax return using the system 40, the system 40 may access the previously filed tax return and will have a significant amount of tax payer data.

After the TLA 60 has evaluated the missing tax data and has determined suggested tax questions for obtaining the missing tax data, the TLA 60 is configured to analyze the taxpayer data profile utilizing the tax matter relevancy module, including in relation to the tax data profiles and/or the logic based correlations. Through the analysis utilizing the relevancy module the TLA 60 determines a relevancy ranking for each of the suggested tax matters. The relevancy ranking is related to a likelihood that the suggested tax matter is relevant to the preparation of the tax return of the taxpayer. For example, the relevancy ranking may be 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 TLA 60 may be configured to determine the relevancy ranking as follows. First, the TLA 60 analyzes the taxpayer data profile in relation to the tax data profiles to identify a matching population set of the tax data profiles that are most similar to the taxpayer data profile. Then, for each suggested tax matter, the TLA 60 determines how many of the tax data profiles have the suggested tax matter as relevant, i.e. included within, the tax data profile, referred to as the number of matching tax data profiles. The TLA 60 then determines a probability that the suggested tax matter is relevant to the particular taxpayer by dividing the number of matching tax data profiles by the total number of taxpayer data profiles in the matching population set. If the taxpayer data profile matches a pre-defined group profile, then the TLA 60 may simply use the group relevancy index, which may be used independently, or cumulated with the probability based on the matching tax data profiles.

The TLA 60 then outputs the suggested tax matters and the corresponding relevancy rankings for each of the suggested tax matters to the user interface manager 82. The system 40 executes the user interface manager 82 which receives the suggested tax matters and the corresponding relevancy rankings. The user interface manager 82 is configured to analyze the relevancy rankings for each of the suggested tax matters and to determine one or more tax questions for the suggested tax matters to present to the user based at least partially upon the suggested tax matters and the corresponding relevancy rankings. As an example, the user interface manager 82 may select the suggested tax matter with the highest relevancy ranking and determine one or more tax question related to this suggested tax matter to present to the user.

Thus, 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 82 will select one or more tax questions for that tax matter first.

The system 40 may iteratively repeat the steps of determining suggested tax matters, analyzing the suggested tax matters utilizing the tax matter relevancy module, determining questions to present to the user, and receiving tax data until all of the required tax data for preparing the tax return has been received by the system 40.

In another aspect of this embodiment, the tax return preparation system 40 may be configured to update the taxpayer data profile and relevancy rankings as more tax data regarding the taxpayer is received. The system 40 presents the one or more tax questions determined by the user interface manager 82 and receives new tax data from the user in response to the one or more tax questions. The system 40 then updates the taxpayer data profile based on the new tax data and generates an updated taxpayer data profile.

The system 40 executes the TLA 60 to evaluate missing tax data and to determine a second plurality of suggested tax matters to obtain the missing tax data. The TLA 60 analyzes the updated taxpayer data profile utilizing the tax matter relevancy module and determines relevancy a relevancy ranking for each of the suggested tax matters, in the same manner as described above for the initial taxpayer data profile.

The second plurality of suggested tax matters and corresponding relevancy rankings are output to the user interface manager 82. The system 40 executes the user interface manager 82 to determine one or more second tax questions to present to the user based at least partially upon the second plurality of suggested tax matters and corresponding relevancy rankings. This process may be repeated until all required tax data has been received and the tax return is completed.

Referring back to FIG. 7, the UI controller 80 encompasses a user interface manager 82 and a user interface presentation or user interface 84. The user interface presentation 84 is controlled by the interface manager 82 and may manifest itself, typically, on a visual screen or display 104 that is presented on a computing device 102 (seen, for example, in FIG. 13). The computing device 102 may include the display of a computer, laptop, tablet, mobile phone (e.g., Smartphone), or the like. Different user interface presentations 84 may be invoked using a UI generator 85 depending, for example, on the type of display or screen 104 that is utilized by the computing device. For example, an interview screen with many questions or a significant amount of text may be appropriate for a computer, laptop, or tablet screen but such as presentation may be inappropriate for a mobile computing device such as a mobile phone or Smartphone. In this regard, different interface presentations 84 may be prepared for different types of computing devices 102. The nature of the interface presentation 84 may not only be tied to a particular computing device 102 but different users may be given different interface presentations 84. For example, a taxpayer that is over the age of 60 may be presented with an interview screen that has larger text or different visual cues than a younger user.

The user interface manager 82, as explained previously, receives non-binding suggested tax matters from the TLA 60. The non-binding suggested tax matters 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 suggested tax matters are processed. For example, a configuration file may specify a particular priority or sequence of processing non-binding suggested tax matters 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 suggested tax matters 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 FIG. 7, the UI controller 80 interfaces with the shared data store 42 such that data that is entered by a user in response to the user interface presentation 84 can then be transferred or copied to the shared data store 42. The new or updated data is then reflected in the updated instantiated representation of the schema 44. Typically, although not exclusively, in response to a user interface presentation 84 that is generated (e.g., interview screen), a user inputs data to the tax preparation software 100 using an input device that is associated with the computing device. For example, a taxpayer may use a mouse, finger tap, keyboard, stylus, voice entry, or the like to respond to questions. The taxpayer may also be asked not only to respond to questions but also to include dollar amounts, check or un-check boxes, select one or more options from a pull down menu, select radio buttons, or the like. Free form text entry may also be requested of the taxpayer. For example, with regard to donated goods, the taxpayer may be prompted to explain what the donated goods are and describe the same in sufficient detail to satisfy requirements set by a particular taxing authority.

Still referring to FIG. 7, the TLA 60 is operatively coupled to a services engine 90 that is configured to perform a number of tasks or services for the taxpayer. For example, the services engine 90 can include a printing option 92. The printing option 92 may be used to print a copy of a tax return, tax return data, summaries of tax data, reports, tax forms and schedules, and the like. The services engine 90 may also electronically file 94 or e-file a tax return with a tax authority (e.g., federal or state tax authority). Whether a paper or electronic return is filed, data from the shared data store 42 required for particular tax forms, schedules, and the like is transferred over into the desired format. With respect to e-filed tax returns, the tax return may be filed using the MeF web-based system that allows electronic filing of tax returns through the Internet. Of course, other e-filing systems may also be used other than those that rely on the MeF standard. The services engine 90 may also make one or more recommendations 96 based on the run-time data 62 contained in the TLA 60. For instance, the services engine 90 may identify that a taxpayer has incurred penalties for underpayment of estimates taxes and may recommend to the taxpayer to increase his or her withholdings or estimated tax payments for the following tax year. As another example, the services engine 90 may find that a person did not contribute to a retirement plan and may recommend 96 that a taxpayer open an Individual Retirement Account (IRA) or look into contributions in an employer-sponsored retirement plan. The services engine 90 may also include a calculator 98 that can be used to calculate various intermediate calculations used as part of the overall tax calculation algorithm. For example, the calculator 98 can isolate earned income, investment income, deductions, credits, and the like. The calculator 98 can also be used to estimate tax liability based on certain changed assumptions (e.g., how would my taxes change if I was married and filed a joint return?). The calculator 98 may also be used to compare analyze differences between tax years.

FIG. 8 illustrates another schematic illustration of a system 40′ for calculating taxes using rules and calculations based on declarative data structures. Those elements equivalent to the embodiment of FIG. 7 are labeled with the same element numbers. In this alternative embodiment, the system 40′ includes an estimation module 110 that writes to the shared data store 42 with estimates 112 or guesses of one or more data fields contained within the shared data store 42. The estimates 112 or guesses may pertain to any number of tax topics and may include alphanumeric characters, a response to a Boolean operation, text, and the like. In this particular embodiment, the estimate module 110 assigns an estimated value to one or more data fields of the schema 44 contained in the shared data store 42. The estimated value may be obtained in a number of ways. In one aspect, user input 114 is used to generate the estimated value. For example, the user may be prompted by UI control 80 with a prompt 84 to enter a guess or estimate on a particular data field. In another aspect, a prior tax return or multiple tax returns 116 can be used to generate an estimated value. For example, taxpayer A may have a history of the past three years of tax return data (e.g., stored as proprietary or standardized files) stored or otherwise made available to tax preparation software 100 that shows yearly dividend income of $1,200, $1,350, and $1,400. The estimation module 110 may generate an average of $1,317 to be used as an estimate for a current year return. Alternatively, the estimation module 110 may employ more robust analytics than merely computing an average or mean value. In the context of this example, the estimation module 100 seeing that dividends appear to be increasing in value each year may attempt to find a function (e.g., linear or non-linear function) that fits the observable data and can be used to better estimate current year tax data. For example, in the above example, a curve fitting function may estimate current year dividend at $1,525 rather than the average value of $1,317.

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 FIG. 8, third party information 120 may be used by the estimation module 110 to arrive at an estimated value for one or more data fields. Third party information 120 may include credit bureaus, government databases, and the like. For example, credit bureaus may include information on student loans taken out by a taxpayer. This information may be used by the estimation module 110 to determine the amount of interest paid on such loans which may be qualified student loan interest.

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 FIG. 9. The attributes 122 may indicate a label such as a source 124 or provenance of the estimated value (e.g., user input 114, prior tax return 116, etc.). In the example of FIG. 9, a source ID 124 indicates the particular source of the data that is used for the field. For example, source ID 01 may correspond to user input 114. Source ID 03 may correspond to a prior year tax return 116. Source ID 05 may correspond to online resources 118 while source ID 06 corresponds to third party information 120.

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 FIG. 9, another attribute 122 may include a confirmation flag 128 that indicates that a taxpayer or user of the tax preparation software 100 has confirmed a particular entry. For example, confirmed entries may be given an automatic “high” confidence value as these are finalized by the taxpayer. Another attribute 122 may include a range of values 130 that expresses a normal or expected range of values for the particular data field. The range of values 130 may be used to identify erroneous estimates or data entry that appear to be incorrect because they fall outside an intended range of expected values. Some estimates, such as responses to Boolean expressions, do not have a range of values 130. In this example, for example, if the number of estimates dependents is more than five (5), the tax logic agent 60 may incorporate into the rules engine 64 attribute range information that can be used to provide non-binding suggested tax matters to the UI control 80 recommending a question to ask the taxpayer about the high number of dependents (prompting user with “are you sure you have 7 dependents”). Statistical data may also be used instead of specific value ranges to identify suspect data. For example, standard deviation may be used instead of a specific range. When a data field exhibits statistical deviation beyond a threshold level, the rules engine 64 may suggest a prompt or suggestion 66 to determine whether the entry is a legitimate or not. Additional details regarding methods and systems that are used to identify suspect electronic tax data may be found in U.S. Pat. No. 8,346,635 which is incorporated by reference herein.

Referring back to FIG. 8, in this embodiment, the tax logic agent 64 includes within or as part of the rules engine 64 attribute rules 130 that are incorporated and used to generate the non-binding suggestion. For example, as explained above, when an estimated value is input or otherwise transferred to the shared data structure 42, this estimated value may fall outside a generally accepted range of values. This may prompt the TLA 60 to suggest a confirmatory question to the UI control 80 to confirm the accuracy of the estimated value that has been obtained. Likewise, various data fields may be associated with a low level of confidence as seen in FIG. 9. Questions relating to tax topics that incorporate these low confidence fields may be promoted or otherwise ranked higher so that accurate values may be obtained from the taxpayer. Conversely, if a particular estimated tax field is associated with a high level of confidence, questions concerning this field may be demoted to a lower importance using the attribute rules 130. For example, multiple fields with a high level of confidence could be presented to the user in a single interview screen to confirm the accuracy of this information without the need to walk through individual questions.

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.

FIG. 10 illustrates an illustrative user interface presentation 84 on a computing device 102 that incorporates the attribute rules 130 to arrive at a confidence level for tax calculations. The user interface presentation 84 appears on a screen 104 of the computing device 102. As seen in FIG. 10, the dollar amount of the calculated federal refund in listed along with the refund amount of the calculated state refund. The user interface presentation 84 includes a confidence level indicator 132. The confidence level indicator 132 indicates the overall or aggregate confidence level in the tax calculation. The tax calculation could include a refund amount as illustrated in FIG. 10 but it may also include a taxes due amount. In the example given in FIG. 10, the confidence level indicator 132 is expressed as a bar 134 in a bar meter type implementation.

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 FIG. 11. In the example, of FIG. 11, the confidence level indicator 132 is indicated as being “low.” Of course, the confidence level indicator 132 may also appear as a percentage (e.g., 0% being low confidence, 100% being high confidence) or as a text response (e.g., “low,” “medium,” and “high” or the like). Other graphic indicia may also be used for the confidence level indicator 132. For example, the color of a graphic may change or the size of the graphic may change as a function of level of confidence. Referring to FIG. 11, in this instance, the user interface presentation 84 may also include hyperlinked tax topics 136 that are the primary sources for the low confidence in the resulting tax calculation. For example, the reason that the low confidence is given is that there is low confidence in the amount listed on the taxpayer's W-2 form that has been automatically imported into the shared data store 42. This is indicated by the “LOW” designation that is associated with the “earned income” tax topic. In addition, in this example, there is low confidence in the amount of itemized deductions being claimed by a taxpayer. This is seen with the “LOW” designation next to the “deductions” tax topic. Hyperlinks 136 are provided on the screen so that the user can quickly be taken to and address the key drivers in the uncertainty in the calculated tax liability.

FIG. 12 illustrates the operations of one illustrative method for calculating tax liability according to an embodiment of the invention. In operation 1000, a user initiates the tax preparation software 100 on a computing device 102 as seen, for example, in FIG. 13. The tax preparation software 100 may reside on the actual computing device 102 that the user interfaces with or, alternatively, the tax preparation software 100 may reside on a remote computing device 103 such as a server or the like as illustrated. In such an instances, the computing device 102 that is utilized by the user or tax payer communicates via the remote computing device 103 using an application 105 contained on the computing device 102. The tax preparation software 100 may also be run using conventional Internet browser software. Communication between the computing device 102 and the remote computing device 103 may occur over a wide area network such as the Internet. Communication may also occur over a private communication network (e.g., mobile phone network).

Referring back to FIG. 12, after initiating the tax preparation software 100, the tax preparation software 100, in operation 1100, gathers or imports tax related data from the one or more data sources 48 as illustrated in FIGS. 7 and 8. Note that the gathering of tax related data from the one or more data sources 48 may occur at the time the tax preparation software 100 is run. Alternatively, the gathering of tax related data from the one or more data sources 48 may occur over a period of time. For example, data sources 48 may be periodically queried over time (e.g., during a tax reporting year) whereby updated information is stored in a database (not shown) or the like that is then accessed by the tax preparation software 100. This option may improve the efficiency and speed of tax return preparation as the information is already available.

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 FIG. 8. Operation 1200 may utilize the method 1210, as described above, to efficiently perform the tax calculations using the tax calculation engine 50 and the calculation graph(s) 14.

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 FIG. 12, as seen in operation 1800, the response or responses that are given by the user of the tax preparation software 100 are then written back to the shared data store 42 to thereby update all appropriate fields of the schema 44. The process then continues with operation 1200 and proceeds as explained above until a completeness state has been reached and a done instruction is sent to the UI control 80.

FIG. 14 illustrates a schematic representation of one preferred embodiment of the invention in which user input via the user interface presentation 84 is minimized. As seen in FIG. 14, tax calculations 2000 are performed based on a number of inputs including user inputs 2100 that are input using the user interface presentation 84 that appears on the computing device 102. It should be noted that tax calculations 2000 can be made even though there may be some missing data entry that is not incorporated into the tax calculation 2000. While the tax return may not be in a condition to be filed, the tax liability or a sub-component thereof (e.g., total itemized deductions, or gross income) can be calculated. These user inputs 2100 are combined with data sources 2200 as well as estimates 2300. Data sources 2200 are obtained, for example, as described previously with respect to data sources 48. Estimates 2300 are obtained, as explained previously, using the estimation module 110. In one aspect of the invention, a large portion of data needed for the calculation and preparation of taxes is obtained either by data sources 2200, estimates 2300 or both. The user input 2100 aspect may be minimized by first populating relevant fields using data sources 2200 and/or estimates 2300. The user input 2100 may be used to input missing data that was not otherwise obtained using data sources 2200 or estimates 2300. User input 2100, however, may also be used to verify estimates or verify sourced data. For example, prior to being incorporated into tax calculations (e.g., stored within the shared data store 42), the user may be prompted to accept, reject, or alter the values of sourced data 2200 or estimates 2300. User input 2100 may also be used to resolve conflicts. For example, soured data 2200 and estimates 2300 may conflict with one another and user input 2100 may be required to resolve the conflict. User input 2100 may also be used to accept or reject sourced data 2200 or estimates 2300. For example, a user may know that a particular estimate 2300 is incorrect and plans to input this particular value manually. The user may be given the option to override the importation and utilization of sourced data 2200 and estimates 2300.

FIG. 15 generally illustrates components of a computing device 102, 103 that may be utilized to execute the software for automatically calculating or determining tax liability and preparing an electronic or paper return based thereon. The components of the computing device 102 include a memory 300, program instructions 302, a processor or controller 304 to execute program instructions 302, a network or communications interface 306, e.g., for communications with a network or interconnect 308 between such components. The computing device 102, 103 may include a server, a personal computer, laptop, tablet, mobile phone, or other portable electronic device. The memory 300 may be or include one or more of cache, RAM, ROM, SRAM, DRAM, RDRAM, EEPROM and other types of volatile or non-volatile memory capable of storing data. The processor unit 304 may be or include multiple processors, a single threaded processor, a multi-threaded processor, a multi-core processor, or other type of processor capable of processing data. Depending on the particular system component (e.g., whether the component is a computer or a hand held mobile communications device), the interconnect 308 may include a system bus, LDT, PCI, ISA, or other types of buses, and the communications or network interface may, for example, be an Ethernet interface, a Frame Relay interface, or other interface. The interface 306 may be configured to enable a system component to communicate with other system components across a network which may be a wireless or various other networks. It should be noted that one or more components of the computing device 102, 103 may be located remotely and accessed via a network. Accordingly, the system configuration illustrated in FIG. 15 is provided to generally illustrate how embodiments may be configured and implemented.

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.

Claims

1. A computing system, comprising: a computerized tax return preparation application comprising computer executable instructions stored in a memory of a computing device and executable by a processor of the computing device to generate an electronic tax return, the computerized tax return preparation application comprising:a shared data store configured to store user-specific tax data;a logic agent in communication with the shared data store;a relevancy module in communication with the logic agent and comprising a plurality of tax data profiles and a plurality of logic based tax correlations, the tax data profiles including at least one of individual profiles and pre-defined profiles, wherein each individual profile has a plurality of individual attributes and tax related data retrieved from the shared data store for a particular individual wherein each pre-defined profile has a plurality of attributes and tax related data retrieved from the shared data store for a class of individuals, each logic based tax correlation defining a logical correlation between one or more taxpayer attributes and a tax related aspect; anda user interface controller in communication with the shared data store and the logic agent,
2. The computing system of claim 1, wherein the logic agent is configured to analyze the taxpayer data profile in relation to the tax data profiles in the relevancy module to determine a relevancy ranking for each of the suggested tax matters by identifying a population set of tax data profiles which are similar to the taxpayer data profile, computing a population probability of relevancy of each suggested tax matter based on the population set, and utilizing the population probability of each suggested tax matter to compute a relevancy ranking of the respective tax matter.
3. The computing system of claim 1, wherein: the computerized tax return preparation application, by the logic agent, is configured to:update the taxpayer data profile and generate an updated taxpayer data profile based at least in part upon the updated data of the shared data store, andanalyze the updated taxpayer data profile in relation to the tax data profiles in the relevancy module to determine a second relevancy ranking for each of a second plurality of suggested tax matters, wherein the second relevancy ranking is related to a likelihood that a suggested tax matter of the second plurality of suggested tax matters is relevant to the electronic tax return andoutput the second plurality of suggested tax matters and corresponding relevancy rankings for the second plurality of suggested tax matters to the user interface-controller.
4. The computing system of claim 1, wherein the tax matters are one or more of tax topics, tax questions, declarative statements regarding the electronic tax return or confirmations regarding the electronic tax return.
5. The computing system of claim 1, wherein the tax data profiles comprise individual profiles which are based upon tax data previously filed tax returns.
6. The computing system of claim 1, wherein the tax data profiles comprise pre-defined profiles which are based upon tax data from previously filed tax returns.
7. The computing system of claim 1, wherein the tax data profiles comprise both individual profiles and pre-defined profiles.
8. The computing system of claim 1, wherein the logic agent is configured to access the taxpayer data from a previously filed tax return.
9. The computing system of claim 1, wherein each relevancy ranking is one of an estimate of the probability of relevance, a numerical ranking among the suggested tax matter, or a ranking index.
10. A computer-implemented method, comprising: storing, by a shared data store of a computerized tax return preparation application, user-specific tax data,accessing, by a logic agent in communication with the shared data store, the shared data store to determine taxpayer data comprising at least one of personal information of the taxpayer or tax data for a taxpayer, andgenerating, by the logic agent, a taxpayer data profile using the taxpayer data,evaluating, by the logic agent, missing tax data needed to prepare the electronic tax return,determining, by the logic agent, a plurality of suggested tax matters for obtaining the missing tax data,analyzing, by the logic agent, the taxpayer data profile in relation to the tax data profiles in the relevancy module to determine a relevancy ranking for each of the suggested tax matters, wherein the relevancy ranking is related to a likelihood that the suggested tax matter is relevant to the tax return of the first taxpayer,outputting, by the logic agent, the plurality of suggested tax matters and corresponding relevancy rankings to the user interface controller; and the computing device, by the user interface controller of the computerized tax return preparation application,receiving, by a user interface controller in communication with the shared data store and the logic agent, the plurality of suggested tax matters for obtaining the evaluated missing tax data and corresponding relevancy rankings,comparing, by the user interface controller, the relevancy rankings corresponding to each of the plurality of suggested tax matters;selecting, by the user interface controller, a suggested tax matter corresponding to the highest relevancy ranking from the comparison;determining, by the user interface controller, one or more questions related to the selected suggested tax matter to present to a user,generating, by the user interface controller, an interactive interview screen comprising at least one of the one or more determined questions, the interactive interview screen being presentable through a display of a computing device,receiving, by the user interface controller, user input through the interactive interview screen in response to the at least one determined question for obtaining the evaluated missing tax data, andupdating, by the user interface controller, the shared data store with the received user input.
11. The computer-implemented method of claim 10, wherein the logic agent analyzes the taxpayer data profile in relation to the tax data profiles in the relevancy module to determine a relevancy ranking for each of the suggested tax matters by identifying a population set of tax data profiles which are similar to the taxpayer data profile, computing a population probability of relevancy of each suggested tax matter based on the population set, and utilizing the population probability of each suggested tax matter to compute a relevancy ranking of the respective tax matter.
12. The computer-implemented method of claim 10, further comprising: updating, by the logic agent, the taxpayer data profile and generating an updated taxpayer data profile based at least in part upon the updated data of the shared data store, andanalyzing, by the logic agent, the updated taxpayer data profile in relation to the tax data profiles in the relevancy module and determining a second relevancy ranking for each of a second plurality of suggested tax matters, wherein the second relevancy ranking is related to a likelihood that a suggested tax matter of the second plurality of suggested tax matters is relevant to the electronic tax return, andoutputting, by the logic agent, the second plurality of suggested tax matters and corresponding relevancy rankings for the second plurality of suggested tax matters to the user interface controller.
13. The computer-implemented method of claim 10, wherein the tax matters are one or more of tax topics, tax questions, declarative statements regarding the tax return or confirmations regarding the electronic tax return.
14. The computer-implemented method of claim 10, wherein the tax data profiles comprise individual profiles which are based upon tax data from previously filed tax returns.
15. The computer-implemented method of claim 10, wherein the tax data profiles comprise pre-defined profiles which are based upon tax data from previously filed tax returns.
16. The computer-implemented method of claim 10, wherein the tax data profiles comprise both individual profiles and pre-defined profiles.
17. The computer-implemented method of claim 10, wherein the first taxpayer data is accessed from a previously filed tax return.
18. The computer-implemented method of claim 10, wherein each relevancy ranking is one of an estimate of the probability of relevance, a numerical ranking among the suggested tax matter, or a ranking index.
19. The computing system of claim 1, wherein the user interface controller is configured to modify at least one of a size of a text and an amount of the text within the interactive interview screen based on a type of the computing device.
20. The computer-implemented method of claim 10, wherein generating the interactive interview screen comprising at least one of the one or more determined questions further comprises: modifying, by the user interface controller, at least one of a size of a text and an amount of the text within the interactive interview screen based on a type of the computing device.

US Referenced Citations (205)

Number	Name	Date	Kind
4213251	Foundos	Jul 1980	A
4809219	Ashford et al.	Feb 1989	A
5006998	Yasunobu	Apr 1991	A
5495607	Pisello et al.	Feb 1996	A
5557761	Chan et al.	Sep 1996	A
5673369	Kim	Sep 1997	A
5819249	Dohanich	Oct 1998	A
6078898	Davis	Jun 2000	A
6535883	Lee et al.	Mar 2003	B1
6601055	Roberts	Jul 2003	B1
6631361	O'Flaherty et al.	Oct 2003	B1
6670969	Halstead et al.	Dec 2003	B1
6690854	Helbing	Feb 2004	B2
6697787	Miller	Feb 2004	B1
6898573	Piehl	May 2005	B1
6912508	McCalden	Jun 2005	B1
7234103	Regan	Jun 2007	B1
7295998	Kulkarni	Nov 2007	B2
7331045	Martin et al.	Feb 2008	B2
7448022	Ram et al.	Nov 2008	B1
7539635	Peak et al.	May 2009	B1
7565312	Shaw	Jul 2009	B1
7603301	Regan	Oct 2009	B1
7668763	Albrecht	Feb 2010	B1
7680756	Quinn	Mar 2010	B2
7685082	Coletta	Mar 2010	B1
7693760	Fiteni	Apr 2010	B1
7693769	Burlison	Apr 2010	B1
7716094	Sutter et al.	May 2010	B1
7742958	Leek	Jun 2010	B1
7747484	Stanley	Jun 2010	B2
7761333	Kapp	Jul 2010	B2
7778895	Baxter	Aug 2010	B1
7818222	Allanson	Oct 2010	B2
7849405	Coletta	Dec 2010	B1
7860763	Quinn et al.	Dec 2010	B1
7865829	Goldfield	Jan 2011	B1
7895102	Wilks et al.	Feb 2011	B1
7899757	Talan	Mar 2011	B1
7900298	Char et al.	Mar 2011	B1
7908190	Enenkiel	Mar 2011	B2
7912767	Cheatham et al.	Mar 2011	B1
7912768	Abeles	Mar 2011	B2
7925553	Banks	Apr 2011	B2
8001006	Yu et al.	Aug 2011	B1
8019664	Tifford et al.	Sep 2011	B1
8082144	Brown et al.	Dec 2011	B1
8086970	Achtermann et al.	Dec 2011	B2
8108258	Slattery	Jan 2012	B1
8126820	Talan	Feb 2012	B1
8190499	McVickar	May 2012	B1
8204805	Eftekhari	Jun 2012	B2
8224726	Murray	Jul 2012	B2
8234562	Evans	Jul 2012	B1
8244607	Quinn	Aug 2012	B1
8346635	Olim	Jan 2013	B1
8346680	Castleman	Jan 2013	B2
8370795	Sage	Feb 2013	B1
8386344	Christina	Feb 2013	B2
8407113	Eftekhari et al.	Mar 2013	B1
8417596	Dunbar et al.	Apr 2013	B1
8417597	McVickar	Apr 2013	B1
8447667	Dinamani et al.	May 2013	B1
8452676	Talan	May 2013	B1
8473880	Bennett et al.	Jun 2013	B1
8478671	Tifford	Jul 2013	B1
8510187	Dinamani	Aug 2013	B1
8527375	Ohm	Sep 2013	B1
8560409	Abeles	Oct 2013	B2
8583516	Pitt	Nov 2013	B1
8589262	Gang	Nov 2013	B1
8607353	Rippert et al.	Dec 2013	B2
8635127	Shaw	Jan 2014	B1
8639616	Rolenaitis	Jan 2014	B1
8682756	Tifford et al.	Mar 2014	B1
8682829	Barthel	Mar 2014	B2
8694395	Houseworth	Apr 2014	B2
8706580	Houseworth	Apr 2014	B2
8788412	Hamm	Jul 2014	B1
8812380	Murray	Aug 2014	B2
8813178	Khanna	Aug 2014	B1
8838492	Baker	Sep 2014	B1
8892467	Ball	Nov 2014	B1
9372687	Pai	Jun 2016	B1
9690854	Stent et al.	Jun 2017	B2
9760953	Wang et al.	Sep 2017	B1
9916628	Wang et al.	Mar 2018	B1
9922376	Wang et al.	Mar 2018	B1
9990678	Cabrera et al.	Jun 2018	B1
20020065831	DePaolo	May 2002	A1
20020107698	Brown et al.	Aug 2002	A1
20020111888	Stanley et al.	Aug 2002	A1
20020174017	Singh	Nov 2002	A1
20020198832	Agee	Dec 2002	A1
20030101070	Mahosky et al.	May 2003	A1
20030126054	Purcell	Jul 2003	A1
20030139827	Phelps	Jul 2003	A1
20030174157	Hellman	Sep 2003	A1
20030182102	Corston-Oliver et al.	Sep 2003	A1
20040002906	Von Drehnen et al.	Jan 2004	A1
20040019540	William	Jan 2004	A1
20040019541	William	Jan 2004	A1
20040021678	Ullah et al.	Feb 2004	A1
20040078271	Marano	Apr 2004	A1
20040083164	Schwartz et al.	Apr 2004	A1
20040088233	Brady	May 2004	A1
20040117395	Gong	Jun 2004	A1
20040172347	Barthel	Sep 2004	A1
20040181543	Wu et al.	Sep 2004	A1
20040205008	Haynie et al.	Oct 2004	A1
20050171822	Cagan	Aug 2005	A1
20050216379	Ozaki	Sep 2005	A1
20050262191	Mamou et al.	Nov 2005	A1
20060112114	Yu	May 2006	A1
20060155632	Cherkas et al.	Jul 2006	A1
20060178961	Stanley et al.	Aug 2006	A1
20060282354	Varghese	Dec 2006	A1
20060293990	Schaub	Dec 2006	A1
20070033116	Murray	Feb 2007	A1
20070033117	Murray	Feb 2007	A1
20070033130	Murray	Feb 2007	A1
20070094207	Yu et al.	Apr 2007	A1
20070136157	Neher, III	Jun 2007	A1
20070150387	Seubert et al.	Jun 2007	A1
20070156564	Humphrey et al.	Jul 2007	A1
20070179841	Agassi	Aug 2007	A1
20070192166	Van Luchene	Aug 2007	A1
20070250418	Banks et al.	Oct 2007	A1
20080059900	Murray	Mar 2008	A1
20080097878	Abeles	Apr 2008	A1
20080147494	Larson	Jun 2008	A1
20080162310	Quinn	Jul 2008	A1
20080177631	William	Jul 2008	A1
20080215392	Rajan	Sep 2008	A1
20080243531	Hyder et al.	Oct 2008	A1
20090024694	Fong	Jan 2009	A1
20090037305	Sander	Feb 2009	A1
20090037847	Achtermann et al.	Feb 2009	A1
20090048957	Celano	Feb 2009	A1
20090064851	Morris et al.	Mar 2009	A1
20090117529	Goldstein	May 2009	A1
20090125618	Huff	May 2009	A1
20090138389	Barthel	May 2009	A1
20090150169	Kirkwood	Jun 2009	A1
20090157572	Chidlovskii	Jun 2009	A1
20090193389	Miller	Jul 2009	A1
20090204881	Murthy	Aug 2009	A1
20090239650	Alderucci et al.	Sep 2009	A1
20090248594	Castleman	Oct 2009	A1
20090248603	Kiersky	Oct 2009	A1
20100036760	Abeles	Feb 2010	A1
20100088124	Diefendorf et al.	Apr 2010	A1
20100131394	Rutsch	May 2010	A1
20100153138	Evans	Jun 2010	A1
20110004537	Allanson et al.	Jan 2011	A1
20110078062	Kleyman	Mar 2011	A1
20110145112	Abeles	Jun 2011	A1
20110225220	Huang et al.	Sep 2011	A1
20110258195	Welling	Oct 2011	A1
20110258610	Aaraj et al.	Oct 2011	A1
20110264569	Houseworth	Oct 2011	A1
20120016817	Smith et al.	Jan 2012	A1
20120027246	Tifford	Feb 2012	A1
20120030076	Checco et al.	Feb 2012	A1
20120030577	Akolkar et al.	Feb 2012	A1
20120072321	Christian et al.	Mar 2012	A1
20120109792	Eftekhari	May 2012	A1
20120109793	Abeles	May 2012	A1
20120136764	Miller	May 2012	A1
20120278365	Labat et al.	Nov 2012	A1
20130036347	Eftekhari	Feb 2013	A1
20130080302	Allanson et al.	Mar 2013	A1
20130097262	Dandison	Apr 2013	A1
20130111032	Alapati et al.	May 2013	A1
20130138586	Jung et al.	May 2013	A1
20130185347	Romano	Jul 2013	A1
20130187926	Silverstein et al.	Jul 2013	A1
20130198047	Houseworth	Aug 2013	A1
20130218735	Murray	Aug 2013	A1
20130262279	Finley et al.	Oct 2013	A1
20130282539	Murray	Oct 2013	A1
20130290169	Bathula	Oct 2013	A1
20140108213	Houseworth	Apr 2014	A1
20140172656	Shaw	Jun 2014	A1
20140201045	Pai et al.	Jul 2014	A1
20140207633	Aldrich et al.	Jul 2014	A1
20140241631	Huang	Aug 2014	A1
20140244455	Huang	Aug 2014	A1
20140244457	Howell et al.	Aug 2014	A1
20140337189	Barsade et al.	Nov 2014	A1
20150142703	Rajesh	May 2015	A1
20150237205	Waller et al.	Aug 2015	A1
20150254623	Velez et al.	Sep 2015	A1
20150269491	Tripathi et al.	Sep 2015	A1
20160027127	Chavarria et al.	Jan 2016	A1
20160063645	Houseworth et al.	Mar 2016	A1
20160078567	Goldman et al.	Mar 2016	A1
20160092993	Ciaramitaro	Mar 2016	A1
20160092994	Roebuck et al.	Mar 2016	A1
20160098804	Mascaro et al.	Apr 2016	A1
20160148321	Ciaramitaro et al.	May 2016	A1
20160275627	Wang	Sep 2016	A1
20170004583	Wang	Jan 2017	A1
20170004584	Wang	Jan 2017	A1
20170032468	Wang	Feb 2017	A1

Foreign Referenced Citations (6)

Number	Date	Country
2002-117121	Apr 2002	JP
2005-190425	Jul 2005	JP
2014-206960	Oct 2014	JP
10-2012-0011987	Feb 2012	KR
2018080562	May 2018	WO
2018080563	May 2018	WO

Non-Patent Literature Citations (226)

Entry
Notice of Allowance and Fee(s) Due dated May 5, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/206,682, (30pages).
PCT International Search Report for PCT/US2016/044094, Applicant: Intuit Inc., Form PCT/ISA/210 and 220, dated Apr. 24, 2017 (5pages).
PCT Written Opinion of the International Search Authority for PCT/US2016/044094, Applicant: Intuit Inc., Form PCT/ISA/237, dated Apr. 24, 2017 (5pages).
PCT International Search Report for PCT/US2016/067839, Applicant: Intuit Inc., Form PCT/ISA/210 and 220, dated Apr. 25, 2017 (5pages).
PCT Written Opinion of the International Search Authority for PCT/US2016/067839, Applicant: Intuit Inc., Form PCT/ISA/237, dated Apr. 26, 2017 (12pages).
Amendment dated May 3, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/462,411, filed Aug. 18, 2014, (5pages).
Response dated May 15, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/448,962, filed Jul. 31, 2014, (30pages).
Office Action dated May 15, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/462,345, filed Aug. 18, 2014, (57pages).
Office Action dated May 15, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/555,902, filed Nov. 28, 2014, (8pages).
Office Action dated May 2, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/698,733, filed Apr. 28, 2015, (31pages).
Office Action dated Nov. 17, 2016 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/448,922, filed Jul. 31, 2014, inventor: Gang Wang.
Amendment dated Feb. 17, 2016 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/448,922, filed Jul. 31, 2014, inventor: Gang Wang.
Office Action dated Apr. 6, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/448,922, filed Jul. 31, 2014, inventor: Gang Wang.
Office Action dated Aug. 11, 2016 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/448,962, filed Jul. 31, 2014, inventor: Gang Wang.
Amendment dated Nov. 11, 2016 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/448,962, filed Jul. 31, 2014, inventor: Gang Wang.
Office Action dated Jan. 13, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/448,962, filed Jul. 31, 2014, inventor Gang Wang.
Office Action dated Aug. 23, 2016 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/448,986, filed Jul. 31, 2014, inventor: Gang Wang.
Response dated Jan. 23, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/448,986, filed Jul. 31, 2014, inventor: Gang Wang.
Office Action dated Feb. 17, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/448,986, filed Jul. 31, 2014, inventor: Gang Wang.
Office Action dated Jan. 12, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/462,411, filed Aug. 18, 2014, inventor: Gang Wang.
Office Action dated Feb. 7, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/555,543, filed Nov. 26, 2014, inventor: Gang Wang.
PCT International Search Report for PCT/US2016/039919, Applicant: Intuit Inc., Form PCT/ISA/210 and 220, dated Oct. 11, 2016.
PCT Written Opinion of the International Search Authority for PCT/US2016/039919, Applicant: Intuit Inc., Form PCT/ISA/237, dated Oct. 11, 2016.
PCT International Search Report for PCT/US2016/039917, Applicant: Intuit Inc., Form PCT/ISA/210 and 220, dated Oct. 11, 2016.
PCT Written Opinion of the International Search Authority for PCT/US2016/039917, Applicant: Intuit Inc., Form PCT/ISA/237, dated Oct. 11, 2016.
PCT International Search Report for PCT/US2016/039918, Applicant: Intuit Inc., Form PCT/ISA/210 and 220, dated Oct. 11, 2016.
PCT Written Opinion of the International Search Authority for PCT/US2016/039918, Applicant: Intuit Inc., Form PCT/ISA/237, dated Oct. 11, 2016.
PCT International Search Report for PCT/US2016/039913, Applicant: Intuit Inc., Form PCT/ISA/210 and 220, dated Oct. 21, 2016.
PCT Written Opinion of the International Search Authority for PCT/US2016/039913, Applicant: Intuit Inc., Form PCT/ISA/237, dated Oct. 21, 2016.
PCT International Search Report for PCT/US2016/039916, Applicant: Intuit Inc., Form PCT/ISA/210 and 220, dated Oct. 11, 2016.
PCT Written Opinion of the International Search Authority for PCT/US2016/039916, Applicant: Intuit Inc., Form PCT/ISA/237, dated Oct. 11, 2016.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependency_grammar#Semantic_dependencies, printed Mar. 11, 2014.
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/L/loose_coupling.html, printed Mar. 11, 2014.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_coupling, printed Mar. 11, 2014.
www.turbotax.com, printed Mar. 11, 2014.
https://turbotax.intuit.com/snaptax/mobilet, printed Mar. 11, 2014.
http://www.jboss.org/drools/drools-expert.html, printed Mar. 11, 2014.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drools, printed Mar. 11, 2014.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declarative_programming, printed Mar. 11, 2014.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-declarative-programming.htm, printed Mar. 11, 2014.
http://docs.jboss.org/drools/release/5.3.0.Final/drools-expert-docs/html/ch01.html, printed Mar. 11, 2014.
http://quicken.intuit.com/support/help/tax-savings/simplify-tax-time/INF24047.html, updated Jul. 25, 2013, printed Jun. 24, 2014 (11 pages).
http://quicken.intuit.com/support/help/income-and-expenses/how-to-assign-tax-form-line-items-to-a-category/GEN82142.html, updated Aug. 11, 2011, printed Jun. 24, 2014 (2 pages).
http://quicken.intuit.com/support/help/reports-graphs-and-snapshots/track-the-earnings-taxes-deductions-or-deposits-from-paychecks/GEN82101.html, updated May 14, 2012, printed Jun. 24, 2014 (2 pages).
NY State Dep of Taxation, NY State Personal Income Tax MeF Guide for Software Developers, 2012, NY State.
Restriction Requirement dated May 22, 2015 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/097,057, filed Dec. 4, 2013, inventor: Gang Wang.
Response dated Jun. 30, 2015 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/097,057, filed Dec. 4, 2013, inventor: Gang Wang.
Office Action dated Oct. 2, 2015 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/097,057, filed Dec. 4, 2013, inventor: Gang Wang.
Response dated Feb. 29, 2016 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/097,057, filed Dec. 4, 2013, inventor: Gang Wang.
Final Office Action dated Apr. 8, 2016 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/097,057, filed Dec. 4, 2013, inventor: Gang Wang.
Pre-Appeal Brief dated Jun. 24, 2016 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/097,057, filed Dec. 4, 2013, inventor: Gang Wang.
Pre-Appeal Brief Conference Decision dated Aug. 15, 2016 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/097,057, filed Dec. 4, 2013, inventor: Gang Wang.
Amendment dated Sep. 13, 2016 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/097,057, filed Dec. 4, 2013, inventor: Gang Wang.
Office Action dated Nov. 4, 2016 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/097,057, filed Dec. 4, 2013, inventor: Gang Wang.
Amendment dated Feb. 6, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/097,057, filed Dec. 4, 2013, inventor: Gang Wang.
Final Rejection dated Mar. 9, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/097,057, filed Dec. 4, 2013, inventor: Gang Wang.
Office Action dated Dec. 23, 2016 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/462,345, filed Aug. 18, 2014, inventor: Gang Wang.
Amendment dated Mar. 23, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/462,345, filed Aug. 18, 2014, inventor: Gang Wang.
Office Action dated Mar. 10, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/448,678, filed Jul. 31, 2014, inventor Gang Wang.
Office Action dated Jul. 8, 2015 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/206,682, filed Mar. 12, 2015, inventor: Gang Wang.
Response dated Aug. 31, 2015 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/206,682, filed Mar. 12, 2015, inventor: Gang Wang.
Office Action dated Mar. 9, 2016 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/206,682, filed Mar. 12, 2015, inventor: Gang Wang.
Amendment dated Jul. 11, 2016 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/206,682, filed Mar. 12, 2015, inventor: Gang Wang.
Office Action dated Sep. 16, 2016 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/206,682, filed Mar. 12, 2015, inventor: Gang Wang.
Amendment dated Jan. 13, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/206,682, filed Mar. 12, 2015, inventor: Gang Wang.
Office Action dated Dec. 31, 2015 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/206,834, filed Mar. 12, 2015, inventor: Gang Wang.
Amendment dated May 31, 2016 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/206,834, filed Mar. 12, 2015, inventor: Gang Wang.
Office Action dated Sep. 6, 2016 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/206,834, filed Mar. 12, 2015, inventor: Gang Wang.
Amendment dated Jan. 6, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/206,834, filed Mar. 12, 2015, inventor: Gang Wang.
Office Action dated Apr. 30, 2015 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/207,121, filed Mar. 12, 2015, inventor: Gang Wang.
Response dated Apr. 30, 2015 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/207,121, filed Mar. 12, 2015, inventor: Gang Wang.
Office Action dated Jul. 30, 2015 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/207,121, filed Mar. 12, 2015, inventor Gang Wang.
Response dated Nov. 30, 2015 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/207,121, filed Mar. 12, 2015, inventor: Gang Wang.
Office Action dated Apr. 29, 2016 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/207,121, filed Mar. 12, 2015, inventor: Gang Wang.
Amendment dated Aug. 29, 2016 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/207,121, filed Mar. 12, 2015, inventor: Gang Wang.
Office Action dated Dec. 14, 2016 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/462,315, filed Aug. 18, 2014, inventor: Gang Wang.
Response dated Mar. 14, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/462,315, filed Aug. 18, 2014, inventor: Gang Wang.
Office Action dated Mar. 21, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/448,481, filed Jul. 31, 2014, inventor: Gang Wang.
Office Action dated Nov. 29, 2016 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/448,886, filed Jul. 31, 2014, inventor: Gang Wang.
Amendment dated Feb. 28, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/448,886, filed Jul. 31, 2014, inventor: Gang Wang.
Office Action dated Apr. 20, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/448,886, filed Jul. 31, 2014, inventor: Gang Wang.
Amendment and Response dated Nov. 9, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/097,057, (31pgs.).
Amendment and Response dated Oct. 26, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/553,347, (25pgs.).
Amendment and Response dated Nov. 2, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/673,261, (30pgs.).
Office Action dated Oct. 30, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/448,678, (39pgs.).
Vanderbilt University, “Free tax prep help available for Vanderbilt employees”, Feb. 6, 2014, Vanderbilt University, p. 1-3.
Notice of Allowance dated Nov. 3, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/529,736, (13pgs.).
Interview Summary dated Sep. 28, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/529,736, (3pgs.).
Office Action dated Sep. 14, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/530,159, (41pgs.).
Amendment and Response dated Nov. 21, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/755,684, (23pgs.).
Office Action dated Nov. 15, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/206,834, (100pgs.).
Office Action dated Sep. 8, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/555,939, (92pgs.).
Amendment and Response dated Sep. 28, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/207,121, (38pgs.).
Office Action dated Sep. 14, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/557,335, (57pgs.).
Amendment and Response dated Aug. 7, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/462,315, (10pgs.).
Advisory Action dated Aug. 24, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/462,315, (3pgs.).
Amendment and Response and Request for Continued Examination dated Sep. 6, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/462,315, (43pgs.).
Amendment and Response dated Sep. 21, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/448,481, (44pgs.).
Office Action dated Jun. 22, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/698,746, (50pgs.).
Amendment and Response dated Sep. 22, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/698,746, (26pgs.).
Office Action dated Oct. 13, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/462,397, (72pgs.).
Office Action dated Nov. 30, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/462,373, (72pgs.).
Office Action dated Jun. 27, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/755,859, (174pgs.).
Amendment and Response dated Nov. 27, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/755,859, (53pgs.).
Amendment and Response dated Jun. 20, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/448,886, (14pgs.).
Advisory Action dated Jul. 5, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/448,886, (4pgs.).
Amendment and Response dated Aug. 21, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/448,886, (37pgs.).
Office Action dated Nov. 28, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/448,886, (65pgs.).
Amendment and Response and Request for Continued Examination dated Sep. 6, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/448,922, (36pgs.).
Office Action dated Nov. 28, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/448,922, (65pgs.).
Office Action dated Oct. 10, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/448,962, (27pgs.).
Office Action dated Oct. 16, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/448,986, (30pgs.).
OpenRules, Preparing a Tax Return Using OpenRules Dialog, Aug. 2011 (Year: 2011) (25pgs.).
Amendment and Response and Request for Continued Examination dated Sep. 6, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/462,411, (24pgs.).
Amendment and Response dated Nov. 7, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/555,334, (26pgs.).
Advisory Action dated Nov. 22, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/555,334, (2pgs.).
Office Action dated Oct. 11, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/701,030, (53pgs.).
Office Action dated Aug. 25, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/673,646, (65pgs.).
Office Action dated Jul. 10, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/555,222, (63pgs.).
Amendment and Response dated Nov. 10, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/555,222, (25pgs.).
Office Action dated Nov. 3, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/701,087, (103pgs.).
Office Action dated Jun. 27, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/675,166, (46pgs.).
Amendment and Response dated Oct. 27, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/675,166, (25pgs.).
Response dated Jun. 23, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/555,296, (7pgs.).
Office Action dated Oct. 20, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/555,296, (50pgs.).
Office Action dated Aug. 18, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/555,543, (42pgs.).
Interview Summary dated Oct. 25, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/555,543, (3pgs.).
Office Action dated Sep. 25, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/700,981, (52pgs.).
Office Action dated Aug. 25, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/673,555, (65pgs.).
Office Action dated Sep. 28, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/701,149, (71pgs.).
Final Office Action dated Jun. 6, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/462,411, (20pges).
Amendment After Final Office Action dated Jun. 6, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/448,922, (8pages).
Interview Summary dated Jun. 7, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/448,922, (2pages).
Advisory Action dated Jun. 14, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/448,922, (4pages).
Amendment After Final Office Action dated Jun. 20, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/448,922, (14pages).
Office Action dated May 26, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/553,347, (43pages).
Office Action dated Jun. 2, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/673,261, (65pages).
Office Action dated May 25, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/529,736, (42pages).
Office Action dated Jun. 6, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/462,315, (54pages).
Amendment and Response dated Jun. 2, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/448,986, (12pages).
Interview Summary dated Jun. 2, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/448,986, (3pages).
Office Action dated Jun. 7, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/555,334, (54pages).
Office Action dated Jun. 7, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/555,296, (7pages).
Response dated Jun. 7, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/555,543, (21pages).
Amendment dated Jun. 9, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/097,057, (26pages).
Office Action dated Jun. 22, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/698,746, (50pages).
Response to Restriction Requirement dated Jul. 5, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/555,902, (12pages).
PCT International Search Report for PCT/US2016/067866 Applicant: Intuit Inc., Form PCT/ISA/210 and 220, dated Jul. 26, 2017 (5pages).
PCT Written Opinion of the International Search Authority for PCT/US2016/067866, Applicant: Intuit Inc., Form PCT/ISA/237, dated Jul. 26, 2017 (4pages).
PCT International Search Report for PCT/US2016/067867 Applicant: Intuit Inc., Form PCT/ISA/210 and 220, dated Jul. 26, 2017 (5pages).
PCT Written Opinion of the International Search Authority for PCT/US2016/067867, Applicant: Intuit Inc., Form PCT/ISA/237, dated Jul. 26, 2017 (9pages).
Response to Office Action dated Jul. 17, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/462,345, (17pages).
Advisory Action dated Jul. 31, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/462,345, (3pages).
Request for Continued Examination and Response dated Aug. 14, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/462,345, (17pages).
Office Action dated Aug. 9, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/097,057, (47pages).
Interview Summary dated Sep. 6, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/553,347, (2pages).
Response dated Aug. 15, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/698,733, (24pages).
Response dated Aug. 10, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/448,678, (41pages).
Office Action dated Sep. 14, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/530,159, (41pages).
Office Action dated Aug. 21, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/755,684, (43pages).
Response dated Jul. 5, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/555,902, (12pages).
Office Action dated Sep. 8, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/555,939, (92pages).
Office Action dated Jun. 28, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/207,121, (29pages).
Office Action dated Sep. 14, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/557,335, (57pages).
Response dated Aug. 7, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/462,315, (10pages).
Advisory Action dated Aug. 24, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/462,315, (3pages).
Request for Examination and Response dated Sep. 6, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/462,315, (43pages).
Office Action dated Jun. 27, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/755,859, (174pages).
Advisory Action dated Jul. 5, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/448,922, (4pages).
Request for Continued Examination and Amendment dated Aug. 21, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/448,922, (37pages).
Request for Continued Examination and Amendment dated Sep. 6, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/448,922, (36pages).
Request for Continued Examination and Amendment dated Sep. 6, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/462,411, (24pages).
Office Action dated Aug. 25, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/673,646, (65pages).
Office Action dated Jun. 27, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/675,166, (46pages).
Response dated Jun. 23, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/555,293, (7pages).
Office Action dated Jul. 10, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/555,222, (63pages).
Office Action dated Aug. 18, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/555,543, (42pages).
Office Action dated Aug. 25, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/673,555, (71pages).
Response dated Sep. 21, 2017 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/448,481, (44pages).
Office Communication dated Apr. 4, 2018 in Canadian Patent Application No. 2,959,230, (6pages).
Supplementary Search Report dated Mar. 26, 2018 in European Patent Application No. 16843282.1-1217, (6pages).
Amendment and Response to Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 14/462,345 dated Apr. 12, 2018, (15pages).
Response to Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 14/553,347 dated Mar. 30, 2018, (26pages).
Advisory Action for U.S. Appl. No. 14/553,347 dated Apr. 13, 2018, (7pages).
Response and Request for Continued Examination for U.S. Appl. No. 14/553,347 dated Mar. 30, 2018, (41pages).
Amendment and Response to Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 14/673,261 dated Apr. 23, 2018, (39pages).
Advisory Action for U.S. Appl. No. 14/673,261 dated May 14, 2018, (9pages).
Amendment and Response to Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 14/698,733 dated Mar. 30, 2018, (39pages).
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 14/462,058 dated Apr. 27, 2018, (47pages).
Amendment and Response to Final and Advisory Actions and Request for Continued Examination for U.S. Appl. No. 14/448,678 dated Mar. 5, 2018, (25pages).
Communication pursuant to Rules 70(2) and 70a(2) EPC dated Apr. 25, 2018 in European Patent Application No. 16843282.1-1217, (1page).
Solomon L. Pollack; Analysis of the Decision Rules in Decision Tables, May 1963; The Rand Corooration; pp. iii, iv, 1, 20, & 24 (Year: 1963).
H.R. Gregg; Decision Tables for Documentation and System Analysis; Oct. 3, 1967; Union Carbide Corporation, Nuclear Division, Computing Technology Center: pp. 5, 6, 18, 19, & 21 (Year: 1967).
Amendment and Response for U.S. Appl. No. 14/529,798 dated Mar. 28, 2018, (23pages).
Response for U.S. Appl. No. 14/755,684 dated Mar. 12, 2018, (23pages).
Advisory Action for U.S. Appl. No. 14/755,684 dated Mar. 30, 2018, (2pages).
Response for U.S. Appl. No. 14/755,684 dated Apr. 4, 2018, (23pages).
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 14/555,902 dated May 17, 2018, (23pages).
Response for U.S. Appl. No. 14/207,121 dated Mar. 19, 2018, (34pages).
Advisory Action for U.S. Appl. No. 14/207,121 dated Apr. 6, 2018 (3pages).
Response for U.S. Appl. No. 14/462,315 dated May 9, 2018, (33pages).
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 14/698,746 dated Feb. 28, 2018, (14pages).
Response for U.S. Appl. No. 14/698,746 dated Apr. 30, 2018, (18pages).
Advisory Action for U.S. Appl. No. 14/698,746 dated May 15, 2018, (3pages).
Response for U.S. Appl. No. 14/462,397 dated Feb. 20, 2018, (33pages).
Response for U.S. Appl. No. 14/462,373 dated Feb. 28, 2018, (25pages).
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 14/755,859 dated Mar. 21, 2018, (57pages).
Response for U.S. Appl. No. 14/755,859 dated May 21, 2018, (8pages).
Response for U.S. Appl. No. 14/448,886 dated Feb. 28, 2018, (31pages).
Amendment for U.S. Appl. No. 14/448,922 dated Feb. 28, 2018, (27pages).
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 14/448,922 dated May 16, 2018, (41pages).
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 14/448,962 dated Apr. 13, 2018, (17pages).
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 14/448,986 dated May 11, 2018, (15pages).
Response for U.S. Appl. No. 14/448,986 dated May 8, 2018, (27pages).
Response for U.S. Appl. No. 14/555,334 dated Apr. 4, 2018, (14pages).
Advisory Action for U.S. Appl. No. 14/555,334 dated Apr. 17, 2018, (2pages).
Response for U.S. Appl. No. 14/555,334 dated May 7, 2018, (41pages).
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 14/673,646 dated Feb. 28, 2018, (19pages).
Response for U.S. Appl. No. 14/673,646 dated Mar. 30, 2018, (22pages).
Response for U.S. Appl. No. 14/701,087 dated Apr. 2, 2018, (41pages).
Amendment After Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 14/675,166, (5pages).
Supplemental Notice of Allowability for U.S. Appl. No. 14/675,166, (3pages).
Response for U.S. Appl. No. 14/555,296, (23pages).
Response for U.S. Appl. No. 14/555,222, (8pages).
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 14/700,981, (28pages).
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 14/673,555, (43pages).

Systems, methods and articles of manufacture for determining relevancy of tax topics in a tax preparation system

Information

Patent Number

Date Filed

Date Issued

Inventors

Original Assignees

Examiners

Agents

CPC

Field of Search

US

CPC

International Classifications

Term Extension

Abstract

Description

Claims

US Referenced Citations (205)

Foreign Referenced Citations (6)

Non-Patent Literature Citations (226)