Task: Table-QA (source dataset: FinQA)

Task: 
You are given a table containing structured data and a natural language question referring to the table. Your goal is to analyze the table and provide an accurate and concise answer based on the given data.

Instructions:
1. Understand the Table: Examine the structure, headers, and data in the table. Identify relevant columns and rows related to the question.
2. Interpret the Question: Determine whether the question requires direct retrieval, aggregation, comparison, sorting, filtering, or inference.
3. Extract the Answer: Use logical reasoning and numerical operations (if necessary) to derive the correct response from the table.
4. Format the Answer: No explanation, return the answer in a structured JSON format: {"answer": <answer>}. If the question cannot be answered due to missing or ambiguous data, return a JSON response with {"answer": null}.

Table:
| Unnamed: 0                                             | 2006         | 2005 as restated ( 1 )   | 2004 as restated ( 1 )   |
|:-------------------------------------------------------|:-------------|:-------------------------|:-------------------------|
| computed expected tax                                  | $ 987        | $ 633                    | $ 129                    |
| state taxes net of federal effect                      | 86           | -19 ( 19 )               | -5 ( 5 )                 |
| indefinitely invested earnings of foreign subsidiaries | -224 ( 224 ) | -98 ( 98 )               | -31 ( 31 )               |
| nondeductible executive compensation                   | 11           | 14                       | 12                       |
| research and development credit net                    | -12 ( 12 )   | -26 ( 26 )               | -5 ( 5 )                 |
| other items                                            | -19 ( 19 )   | -24 ( 24 )               | 4                        |
| provision for income taxes                             | $ 829        | $ 480                    | $ 104                    |
| effective tax rate                                     | 29% ( 29 % ) | 27% ( 27 % )             | 28% ( 28 % )             |

Question:
what was the lowest effective tax rate in the three year period?


pre_text: notes to consolidated financial statements ( continued ) note 7 2014income taxes ( continued ) as of september 30 , 2006 , the company has state and foreign tax loss and state credit carryforwards , the tax effect of which is $ 55 million .
certain of those carryforwards , the tax effect of which is $ 12 million , expire between 2016 and 2019 .
a portion of these carryforwards was acquired from the company 2019s previous acquisitions , the utilization of which is subject to certain limitations imposed by the internal revenue code .
the remaining benefits from tax losses and credits do not expire .
as of september 30 , 2006 and september 24 , 2005 , a valuation allowance of $ 5 million was recorded against the deferred tax asset for the benefits of state operating losses that may not be realized .
management believes it is more likely than not that forecasted income , including income that may be generated as a result of certain tax planning strategies , together with the tax effects of the deferred tax liabilities , will be sufficient to fully recover the remaining deferred tax assets .
a reconciliation of the provision for income taxes , with the amount computed by applying the statutory federal income tax rate ( 35% ( 35 % ) in 2006 , 2005 , and 2004 ) to income before provision for income taxes , is as follows ( in millions ) : 2006 2005 2004 as restated ( 1 ) as restated ( 1 ) .
post_text: ( 1 ) see note 2 , 201crestatement of consolidated financial statements . 201d the company 2019s income taxes payable has been reduced by the tax benefits from employee stock options .
the company receives an income tax benefit calculated as the difference between the fair market value of the stock issued at the time of the exercise and the option price , tax effected .
the net tax benefits from employee stock option transactions were $ 419 million , $ 428 million ( as restated ( 1 ) ) , and $ 83 million ( as restated ( 1 ) ) in 2006 , 2005 , and 2004 , respectively , and were reflected as an increase to common stock in the consolidated statements of shareholders 2019 equity. .
label: 0.27
qa: answer: 27%
steps: op: min1-1
arg1: effective tax rate
arg2: none
res: 27%
program: table_min(effective tax rate, none)
gold_inds: table_8: the effective tax rate of 2006 is 29% ( 29 % ) ; the effective tax rate of 2005 as restated ( 1 ) is 27% ( 27 % ) ; the effective tax rate of 2004 as restated ( 1 ) is 28% ( 28 % ) ;
exe_ans: 0.27
tfidftopn: text_6: a reconciliation of the provision for income taxes , with the amount computed by applying the statutory federal income tax rate ( 35% ( 35 % ) in 2006 , 2005 , and 2004 ) to income before provision for income taxes , is as follows ( in millions ) : 2006 2005 2004 as restated ( 1 ) as restated ( 1 ) .
text_5: management believes it is more likely than not that forecasted income , including income that may be generated as a result of certain tax planning strategies , together with the tax effects of the deferred tax liabilities , will be sufficient to fully recover the remaining deferred tax assets .
program_re: table_min(effective tax rate, none)
model_input: table_1
the computed expected tax of 2006 is $ 987 ; the computed expected tax of 2005 as restated ( 1 ) is $ 633 ; the computed expected tax of 2004 as restated ( 1 ) is $ 129 ;
table_7
the provision for income taxes of 2006 is $ 829 ; the provision for income taxes of 2005 as restated ( 1 ) is $ 480 ; the provision for income taxes of 2004 as restated ( 1 ) is $ 104 ;
table_8
the effective tax rate of 2006 is 29% ( 29 % ) ; the effective tax rate of 2005 as restated ( 1 ) is 27% ( 27 % ) ; the effective tax rate of 2004 as restated ( 1 ) is 28% ( 28 % ) ;