Abstract:
A program controlled apparatus, system, and method for determining the transactional taxes due for each item by any taxing authority worldwide. The apparatus comprises a first database comprising a tree structure identifying all of the zones to be examined. A second database comprising all of the taxing authorities is independent from the first zone database. A third database, decoupled from the first and second databases, has data representing the relationship between the data records of the first database and the data records of the second database. Each of the databases can be updated periodically to reflect any changes in identified taxing authorities for the zones over which they may have taxing authority. Furthermore, the present invention provides for an independent, autonomous determination of jurisdiction and tax for each line item and calculates the tax based on any exceptions and exemptions.

Description:
RELATED APPLICATIONS 
     This application is a Continuation of and claims the benefit of priority to U.S. Non-Provisional application Ser. No. 10/869,812, filed on Jun. 15, 2004 now U.S. Pat. No. 7,933,803 and entitled UNIVERSAL TAX ENGINE, which claims the benefit of priority to U.S. Provisional application No. 60/480,989, filed on Jun. 23, 2003 and entitled UNIVERSAL TAX ENGINE, the contents of each of which are hereby incorporated herein in their entirety by this reference. 
    
    
     FIELD OF THE INVENTION 
     The present invention is directed, in general, to an intelligent apparatus and method for transforming, analyzing, storing and reporting detailed computation of tax related data, and in particular to a system and method of generating taxes due to any taxing authority worldwide with an independent, autonomous determination of jurisdiction and tax for each authority object. 
     BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION 
     Tax laws are complex, and ever changing. In addition, there are multiple taxing authorities that put rules and regulations in place impacting even the simplest of transactions. One consequence of doing business in many locales is an increase in the complexity of an organization&#39;s procedures designed to facilitate tax compliance. Because of political boundary variations, changing laws and regulations, new forms of products, and new business innovations, transaction taxes and tax compliance represent a substantial part of any organization&#39;s cost structure. In the United States alone, there are over 7,500 tax jurisdictions, including states, cities, counties, and subsections of cities and counties. The location of an organization&#39;s warehouses, stores, and/or customers may all impact the organization&#39;s tax obligations as it does business electronically, or via traditional “brick and mortar” mechanisms. 
     Transaction taxes generally relate to the transfer (i.e., the purchase or sale) of goods and/or services. Special transactional taxes may exist in various locales for certain types of goods (e.g., alcohol may be subject to an excise tax, or communications services may be subject to a telecom tax), but generally, there are three main categories of transactional taxes: turnover tax; sales and use tax; and value added tax. While all three categories of taxes represent a tax on the sale of supplies (i.e., goods and/or services), they differ in many important ways, such as how the tax is calculated and to whom the tax is owed, thereby further complicating tax compliance procedures and reporting. In addition, considerations such as exemptions, specially negotiated rates, and the like, must be taken into consideration by an organization&#39;s tax professional in order to prevent miscalculation of taxes, which may lead to overpayment, or penalties for underpayment. 
     In general, tax laws are created and enacted in broad strokes, such as all countries in the European Union assessing a special reduced rate for a given petroleum byproduct, or all cities in California may charge up to 1% for food stamp eligible items. However, it is often the case that individual taxing authorities create their own exceptions or enhancements to these rules. It may be that one of the EU countries only assesses tax if the seller is registered and established, and it could be that several cities in California only assess a ½% tax for food stamp eligible items. 
     In order to handle such situations, previous systems and methods force users to store redundant data and implement multiple tax engines. Such systems require software updates whenever there is a change in the tax law by any taxing authority. 
     It would be desirable, therefore, to have a system and method of processing tax which decouples each taxing authority from the geographical regions (zones) over which they hold taxing jurisdiction, such that there would not be a need to generate large tax tables with greatly repetitive data. 
     In addition, it would be desirable to have a system and method of processing tax information where the addition of an authority, and/or the implementing of an authority&#39;s processing rules can be incorporated into the system merely by updating a small amount of data. 
     Further, it would be desirable to have a single system which handles multiple types of authorities, removing the need to maintain disparate systems. 
     SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION 
     This invention provides for the taxing authority to be identified independently from named geographical areas (a.k.a., zones) over which they hold sway. This orientation mirrors reality, in that a given taxing authority may have jurisdiction to assess tax over a number of geographical areas. Known systems make no differentiation between zones and authorities. In the present invention, authorities are mapped to zones using standard relational database normalization methods, allowing any number of authorities to be used in calculation for any number of zones. This design removes the data duplication problems that exist in known systems. 
     Another advantage of this invention, enabled by this data model, is that with the decoupling of the authority from the zones, an infinite number of authorities can assess tax on a given transaction, whereas known systems are limited to a finite maximum set. 
     A simple example is the case of Autauga County in Alabama. In this example, Autauga County is an “authority” that is legally authorized to pass its own tax laws. This authority assesses a tax on all transactions in the county over which it has jurisdiction. In addition, some (but not all) of the cities in this county also assess a separate city tax. Again, each city is therefore an authority having its own jurisdiction. The Autauga County taxing authority is stored only once in the database, and is mapped to only one zone (the Autauga County zone 
     A slightly more complicated example is that of the Bay Area Rapid Transit special taxing district in California (“BART”). The BART taxing authority is eligible to assess tax in a handful of counties (each a zone) in California. As it happens, these counties also assess an additional county tax on all transactions in their respective counties. In such a case, these three counties will have two authorities associated with each, whereas the rest of the county zones in California will only have one. 
     The invention also provides for taxing authorities to operate independently of each other. In the present invention, each authority has a procedure which determines jurisdiction, determines special exceptions and enhancements, and calculates the actual tax. The procedure associated with a particular authority can be independent of all other authority procedures. In effect, each authority acts as an independent, autonomous entity, without reference to, or dependence on, other authorities. This responsibility-driven design mirrors the way the actual governmental taxing authorities operate. In one embodiment, each authority can have a completely separate procedure for performing these functions. This association between an authority and its procedure can be mapped, either in code or in data. 
     In reality, however, multiple authorities often share various subcomponents of these procedures. For example, most countries in the European Union only assess tax if the seller is registered and established with the authority. In such a case, the verification of registration and establishment can be shared across all authorities in the EU. Therefore, in a second embodiment, the calculation method can be decomposed into independently sharable and executable subcomponents for jurisdiction determination, exception and exemption handling, and calculation. For example, both France and Germany share the same jurisdiction determination rules, which can be captured in a single subcomponent that is shared between both authorities. Further, the subcomponents can also be individually associated with authorities through code or data. 
     By having each authority determine for itself if and how it will assess tax on a given transaction, the present invention is uniquely able to combine many different taxing authorities, including authorities from different parts of the world, on one transaction. In fact, it is this feature in particular that enables the present invention to perform tax calculations on U.S., non-U.S. and combination transactions—a dexterity unavailable in previous known systems. In order to use previous systems, one must purchase and interface with separate U.S. and international tax engines (Canada taxation is usually incorporated into the U.S. engines). With the present invention, companies can run transactions that ship from Paris, Tex., to Paris, France, in one system. 
     These two facets of independence are a major departure from previous implementations of tax calculation technology. Technologically, it is accomplished by using object-oriented techniques and relational data modeling best practices, instead of a procedural implementation or “hard coding” of tax rules, and/or denormalized data structures. The invention instantiates a line item for each authority, and interrogates the authority for information regarding taxation. Data stored in the database allows reuse of code—only one authority class (a.k.a., data type) is used, and this type, combined with data from the database relevant to the authority, enables individual authorities to have varying characteristics and attributes. This is an advancement over known systems or methods. 
     The system or method of the current invention enables a quick reaction to many tax law changes without the need for a new release of software. For example, on Jan. 1, 2004, all counties and cities in the state of Ohio will determine their eligibility to have jurisdiction over a transaction in the same fashion as does the state of Connecticut. The present invention can handle that change with a simple database update, rather than a re-release of software, as would be required by known systems. 
     The decoupling of taxing authorities from the geographical areas (“zones”) over which they hold jurisdiction, and the independent, autonomous operation of taxing authorities are breakthrough concepts in tax calculation technology. Boiled down to its simplest description, the system and method of the present invention “looks like the law”: the taxing authority is the linchpin of the system and performs calculation operations as appropriate to itself. Previous products in this same space create a calculator engine in which all authorities are homogenized and intermingled, often within one central procedure. In addition, previous systems and methods do not drive the procedure control flow by data, but rather use hard-coded methods. 
    
    
     
       BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS 
       The invention is best understood from the following detailed description when read with the accompanying Figures. In the drawings, like reference numerals refer to like parts throughout the various views of the non-limiting and non-exhaustive embodiments of the present invention, and wherein: 
         FIG. 1  is a block diagram of one embodiment of a network environment in accordance with the teachings of the present invention; 
         FIG. 2  is a block diagram of one embodiment of a computer system representative of a client system or a server in accordance with the teachings of the present invention; 
         FIG. 3  is a schematic of the present invention; 
         FIG. 4  is an embodiment of the present invention depicting the decoupling of zones and authorities; 
         FIG. 5  is a flow chart of the method and system of the present invention; 
         FIG. 6  is an embodiment of the present invention for the independent, autonomous authority methods; 
         FIGS. 7A-C  are examples of look-up tables of the present invention; 
         FIGS. 8A-E  are examples of look-up tables of the present invention; 
         FIGS. 9A-B  are embodiments of prior art flat tables; and 
         FIG. 10  is a pictorial illustration of an example invoice. 
     
    
    
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS 
     Embodiments of methods, apparatus, and articles of manufacture for tax computation, management, and compliance reporting are described herein. In the following description, numerous specific details are provided, such as the identification of various system components, to provide a thorough understanding of embodiments of the invention. One skilled in the art will recognize, however, that the invention can be practiced without one or more of the specific details, or with other methods, components, materials, etc. In still other instances, well-known structures, materials, or operations are not shown or described in detail to avoid obscuring aspects of various embodiments of the invention. 
     Reference throughout this specification to “one embodiment” or “an embodiment” means that a particular feature, structure, or characteristic described in connection with the embodiment is included in at least one embodiment of the present invention. Thus, the appearance of the phrases “in one embodiment” or “in an embodiment” in various places throughout this specification are not necessarily all referring to the same embodiment. Furthermore, the particular features, structures, or characteristics may be combined in any suitable manner in one or more embodiments. 
     As an overview, embodiments in accordance with the teachings of the present invention provide methods, apparatus, and articles of manufacture for tax computation, management, and compliance reporting via a centralized transactional tax platform capable of incorporating transaction data and/or tax information from multiple locations and/or multiple business applications via a network architecture. In one embodiment, a central server, configured to execute an application for managing the configuration, administration, and reporting associated with global tax transactions, may be communicatively coupled to a plurality of intra-organizational client systems located throughout the world. Each of the plurality of client systems may be configured to execute one or more business applications to enable transactions or to gather information related to transactions, in an embodiment. 
     In one embodiment, transaction data corresponding to the transactions may be communicated to the central server via a network communication link from a calling client system. Upon receiving the transaction data, the central server may execute instructions to calculate any appropriate transaction taxes, store tax-related information corresponding to the transaction such as audit information, a record of calculation logic and output, or the like, and respond to the calling client system with an indication of the calculated transaction taxes associated with the transaction or series of transactions. 
     With reference now to the drawings, and in particular to  FIG. 1 , an embodiment of a network environment  101  is illustrated in accordance with the teachings of the present invention. In one embodiment, a server  103  may be communicatively coupled to a plurality of client systems  105 ,  107 ,  109 ,  111 ,  113 , and  115  via a network  117 . In one embodiment, the client systems  105 - 115  are capable of connecting to the network  117  via individual communication links  121   a ,  121   b ,  121   c ,  121   d ,  121   e  and  121   f , respectively, while the server  103  is capable of connecting to the network  117  via a communication link  123 . 
     In one embodiment, the communication links  121   a - 121   f , and  123  may be used by the client systems  105 - 115 , and the server  103 , respectively, to send and/or receive information from one another, such as for example, but not limited to, configuration data, transaction data, and/or tax information. In one embodiment, the communication links  121   a - 121   f , and  123  may comprise physical connections, such as for example, cables, wires, optical fibers, or the like. In another embodiment, the communication links  121   a - 121   f , and  123  may comprise wireless links, such as for example, radio frequency (“RF”) links, satellite transmissions, optical signals, or the like, transmitted through the atmosphere, or any combination of the foregoing. In one embodiment, the network  117  may be any type of communications network through which a plurality of different devices may communicate, such as for example, but not limited to, the Internet, a wide area network (“WAN”), a local area network (“LAN”), an intranet, or the like, or any combination of networks interconnected with one another. 
     In one embodiment, the server  103  and the plurality of client systems  105 - 115  may comprise elements of a single organization (also referred to herein as a “company”) with physical locations throughout various parts of the world and/or the United States. For example, in the illustrated embodiment, the client systems  105  and  111  may be located at two distinct locations within the United States, while the client system  107  may be located in South America, the client system  109  may be located in Asia, the client system  113  may be located in Europe, and the client system  115  may be located in Canada. It will be appreciated that the locations of the client systems  105 - 115  described herein and illustrated in  FIG. 1  are provided as examples only, and that the location and number of the client systems  105 - 115  may vary in other embodiments in accordance with the teachings of the present invention. 
     In one embodiment, the server  103  may be coupled to a central storage, such as a database  119 , to store data such as current tax tables, computational algorithms, organization nexus and location information, customer data, product codes and cross references, as well as exceptions and exemptions to standard tax provisions within various tax jurisdictions and/or tax zones, and the like, to facilitate the calculation of transactional taxes corresponding to transactions occurring in various locales. In addition, the database  119  may store data including tax information such as audit data, compliance reports, and the like, to facilitate tax compliance within the various locales, taxing jurisdictions, or tax zones in which the transactions are taking place. In one embodiment, the database  119  may also include product information, which, in conjunction with taxing jurisdictions, may facilitate an analysis of sales data for the organization. 
     With reference now primarily to  FIG. 2 , a block diagram illustrating one embodiment of a machine  201 , representative of the server  103  and/or the client systems  105 - 115 , is shown in accordance with the teachings of the present invention. Typically, the server  103  may comprise a computer server or similar type of server hardware that is designed to communicate with a plurality of other machines. The clients  105 - 115  may comprise various types of machines, including a desktop computer or a workstation, for example, but may also comprise a computer server or similar type of server hardware that is designed to communicate with a plurality of other machines. In one embodiment, the machine  201  is a computer that includes a processor  203  coupled to a bus  207 . In one embodiment, a memory  205 , a storage  211 , a display controller  209 , a communications interface  213 , an input/output controller  215 , and an audio controller  223  are also coupled to the bus  207 . 
     In one embodiment, the machine  201  interfaces to external systems through the communications interface  213 . The communications interface  213  may include a radio transceiver compatible with various modulated signals, wireless telephone signal, or the like. The communications interface  213  may also include an Ethernet adapter, an analog modem, Integrated Services Digital Network (“ISDN”) modern, cable modem, Digital Subscriber Line (“DSL”) modem, a T-1 line interface, a T-3 line interface, an optical carrier interface (e.g., OC3), token ring interface, satellite transmission interface, a wireless interface, or other interfaces for coupling a device to other devices. 
     In one embodiment, a carrier wave signal  221  is received/transmitted between the communications interface  213  and the network  117 . In one embodiment, the communications signal  221  may be used to interface the machine  201  with another computer, system, a network hub, a router, or the like. In one embodiment, the carrier wave signal  221  is considered to be machine-readable media, which may be transmitted through wires, cables, optical fibers, or through the atmosphere, or the like. 
     In one embodiment, the processor  203  may be a conventional processor, such as for example, but not limited to, an Intel© x86 processor, or Pentium© family microprocessor, a Motorola© family microprocessor, or the like. The memory  205  may be a machine-readable medium such as dynamic random access memory (“DRAM”), and may include static random access memory (“SRAM”). The display controller  209  controls, in a conventional manner, a display  219 , which in one embodiment may be a cathode ray tube (“CRT”), a liquid crystal display (“LCD”), an active matrix display, or the like. An input/output device  217 , coupled to the input/output controller  215  may be a keyboard, a disk drive, a printer, a scanner, or other input/output device, including a mouse, a trackball, a trackpad, a joystick, or the like. 
     A significant component of any transaction tax determination is the location of the parties involved in the transaction. In the United States, each transaction must include information regarding each of four locations: a ship from location; a point of order origin (“POO”) location; a point of order acceptance (“POA”) location; and a ship to location. The ship from location generally refers to a location from which goods are being shipped, or a location at which services are being performed, for example a warehouse or a store. The POO location generally refers to a location at which an order for the goods or services is placed, for example a store or a trade show. The POA location generally refers to a location at which the order for the goods or services is accepted, for example a call center where an order was placed. The ship to location generally refers to a location at which a customer receives the goods or services that were purchased, for example the customer&#39;s business or home. Other jurisdictions may require more, or less location information. 
     Turning now to  FIG. 9A  and  FIG. 9B , there are shown flat databases as are known in the art where the authority and zones are coupled together. Such a database couples the authority directly to the zone and the tax rule and the tax rate. Such flat databases have the known problems of repetitions of the same data for each combination and permutation of these variables (authority, zone, rate, etc.). For example, note in  FIG. 9B  that the county of BARBOR is represented multiple times, but with the same tax rate. 
     Turning to  FIG. 4 , there is shown according to the present invention a zone authority  400  having a zone  401  decoupled from authority  402 . As used herein, “zone” is any geopolitical boundary of a physical location in the world. It may or may not have a corresponding taxing authority associated with it. 
     Geopolitical regions can be organized into hierarchical tree structures based on geopolitical boundaries. While zone tree  403  is an essential element of this invention, the generation of zone tree  403  can be developed by one skilled in the art of computer science, with knowledge of the zones that are to be formed into a tree. It is left to one skilled in the art to determine how many levels the tree will have and how the political areas or zones are to be defined. 
     As shown in the embodiment of  FIG. 4 , zone  401  shows the World defined with four levels, shown here by way of example, with the levels defined as United States (Country), California (State), San Francisco (City), and zip codes providing the level of detail. As indicated by dashed line  404 , other branches of the tree could be shown for continents such as Europe, Asia, Africa, or countries such as Mexico, France, or Germany. Dashed line  405  could be any or all of the 50 states and dashed line  406  could be any of the cities, counties, municipalities, or other tax entities within California. The extent of the tree is not limited by this invention. In fact, this invention allows the zone tree to be expanded to cover any number of levels as meets the needs of the party that implements the zone tree. 
     Authority  402  can be any organization authorized or capable of assessing taxes. This authority table can be as extensive as the user wishes. Shown by way of example and not of limitation three authorities, the California State Authority, the San Francisco County Authority, and the California BART Special Transit Authority, are shown. The user is free to define and establish a table of any number of authorities. Since the present invention is to decouple authority  402  from zone  401 , the present invention provides for great flexibility in the method and system of calculating tax consequences of a commercial transaction as will be explained below in greater detail. 
     With reference to  FIG. 3 , there is shown a representative transaction of the present invention. A user-generated transaction  301  is communicated  304  to a coordinator  302 . Transaction  301  is not limited to any particular format, but the format by way of example is shown as an XML document communicated by HTTP or HTTPS to the coordinator  302 . The transaction by way of example is an invoice having at least one item that has experienced or is to experience a commercial transaction. Each line item represents an object that may be any item placed in commerce. As shown in  FIG. 10 , an exemplary transaction is an invoice  101  with one object per line (or line item) such as a chair, a desk, and a cube wall. 
     The XML document is communicated  303  to block  304  “BUILD INVOICE” where the XML is converted to a new format of line items which is communicated  305  back to the coordinator  302 . The line item is then communicated  306  to, and processed in, block  307  to determine if each line item is valid. If the line item is invalid, for example, if the data is not recognized, or has incorrect information entered, that line item is unable to be processed, and processing of that line item is done. Such a line item is marked as invalid. For all valid line items, the line item is communicated  308  back to the coordinator for additional processing by the system or method to generate a correct list of zones associated with an address for each line item. 
     Coordinator  302  communicates  310  the line item to block  312  “FIND ZONES” where for each line item an operation is performed to identify zones associated with that line item. The results are then communicated  314  back to coordinator  302 . Each line item is then communicated  316  from coordinator  302  to block  318  “FIND AUTHORITY” which determines which authority, if any, is associated with the zones that were identified in block  312 . The result is then communicated  320  to block  322  “AUTHORITY” where the independent, autonomous determination of jurisdiction and tax is calculated for each authority object. In AUTHORITY  322 , steps are taken to look-up the appropriate jurisdiction method to determine if the authority has the jurisdiction to tax the line item and if so the appropriate exceptions and exemptions if any are looked up and applied to the transaction. Current tax rules are looked up and appropriate tax rates are looked up and then applied to the line item. The results of the AUTHORITY  322  are communicated  324  back to coordinator  302 . Coordinator  302  communicates  326  the calculated tax results to AUDIT box  328 . AUDIT box  328  sends a copy to STORAGE  330  and communicates  332  back to coordinator  302  the tax results which are then converted to an XML document (if that is the chosen method of communication) to send out an enhanced transaction that includes all the tax calculations that have been taken into account, all of the current tax rate rules, exceptions, and rates for each line item examined. 
     Turning now to  FIG. 5 , there is shown transaction  500  which by way of example is the same XML document of  FIG. 3 . The invention of  FIG. 3  is depicted in  FIG. 5  as a flow chart to explain the steps of an exemplary implementation. 
     Transaction  500  is communicated  502  to block  504  where the XML structure is removed and is converted into an invoice. The output from block  504  is at least one line item having an address associated with it (“LINE ITEM WITH ADDRESSES”) that is communicated  506  to block  508  where each line item of the invoice is validated. If the LINE ITEM WITH ADDRESSES is valid, it will be communicated over connection  510  to block  512  where the appropriate zones will be identified based on the line item addresses. If the LINE ITEM WITH ADDRESSES is invalid, block  508  will return an invalid signal  509 . 
     Block  512  is the “FIND ZONES” operation that will perform an operation to associate a zone or zones for each LINE ITEM WITH ADDRESSES. By way of example, the operation to associate a zone is preferably done by use of a look-up table that identifies in a relational database the correspondence of addresses with zones. 
     Once the zones have been identified in block  512 , the line item is converted to an ENHANCED LINE ITEM that is communicated  514  to block  516  (“FIND AUTHORITIES FOR ZONE”). Using the zone information in block  516  the authorities associated with the zone are identified to produce a MODIFIED LINE ITEM. By way of example, the operation to associate the authorities with the zone is preferably done by use of a look-up table that identifies in a relational database the correspondence of authorities with zones. 
     Having associated the zones and the authority, the MODIFIED LINE ITEM is communicated  517  to block  518  where the information is processed to determine jurisdiction, to find any exceptions, to find tax rules, to apply tax rules, and to apply the tax rates associated with the tax rules. This step of applying the tax rules can be done by any computation engine known to those skilled in the art. The result from block  518  is communicated  519  to block  520  where it is processed to produce AN ENHANCED INVOICE  520 . The ENHANCED INVOICE LINE ITEM  520  is then communicated  521  to be stored in block  524 . ENHANCED INVOICE  520  is also communicated  526  to block  528  where it is converted back to a form for transmission, such as to an XML document. The output of block  528  is communicated  530  to the designated destination as an ENHANCED TRANSACTION  532  that contains all of the appropriate tax calculations. 
     Turning now to  FIG. 6 , there is shown an additional embodiment in which the subcomponents of the AUTHORITY function are displayed in detail.  FIG. 6  shows the details of the present invention that take place in block  322  of  FIG. 3  and block  518  in  FIG. 5 . 
     As shown in  FIG. 6 , a MODIFIED LINE ITEM is communicated to box  601  where it is processed to find the appropriate jurisdiction determination method in block  607 . Block  607  identifies the correct method by mapping data, such as for example, using a look-up table like the one depicted in  FIG. 8A . With the identified method, the modified information is communicated to block  602  to determine jurisdiction eligibility. The output is a jurisdictional result that is communicated  603  to box  604  to evaluate exceptions and exemptions. The EXCEPTION METHOD block  604  is mapped in this embodiment by use of a look-up table like the one depicted in  FIG. 8B . The exception method is communicated  610  to be run in block  606  “APPLY EXCEPTION” and the processed data is then communicated  605  to block  608  “FIND CALC METHOD” where the appropriate tax calculation method is looked up in a table like the one depicted in  FIG. 8C . The tax calculation is then communicated  611  to and performed in block  609  “CALCULATE.” The calculation is performed by any means known in the industry, such as a computation engine that performs the necessary computation to apply the tax rate to the line item. The result is then communicated  612  to the next step, which corresponds to  519  as is shown in  FIG. 5 . 
     Looking now at  FIGS. 7A-7C , there are shown sample tables of an exemplary way to implement some of the steps of the present invention that have been shown in a more general implementation in  FIG. 3 ,  FIG. 5 , and  FIG. 6 . By way of example, as shown in  FIG. 7B , ZONE ID  1  is identified as FRANCE, ZONE ID  2  is identified as TEXAS, and ZONE ID  3  is identified as ARAB in a look-up table. These names (FRANCE, TEXAS, ARAB) are names of geographic areas or zones. There is no limit to the number of zones that can be identified and entered into the zone table shown in  FIG. 7B . 
     A separate table,  FIG. 7C  identifies authorities by the names France, TX—STATE TAX, AL—ARAB CITY TAX, and AL—CULLMAN COUNTY TAX, each of which is associated with a corresponding authority ID. These names are representative of any legal entity having the power to assess taxes. Again, this table is not limited in the number of authorities, as the authority table is not coupled to the zone table. 
     Once the information coming through as a LINE ITEM WITH ADDRESSES (see  FIG. 5 ) is communicated to block  512 , the address is used to identify the applicable zone. Assuming for example that a LINE ITEM WITH ADDRESSES is identified by its address as being subject to zone ARAB, block  512  would look-up and identify ZONE ID  3  (see  FIG. 7B ) as the appropriate zone. In step  516  a look-up in the ZONE AUTHORITY table ( FIG. 7A ) would find that ZONE ID  3  has been identified two times, by AUTHORITY ID  26  and AUTHORITY ID  27 . While shown having two AUTHORITY IDs, there is in fact no limit to the number of authorities that may have assessed taxes on a particular zone. 
     As shown in  FIG. 7A , AUTHORITY ID  27  has been assigned a processing order of 1, meaning it should be processed first, and AUTHORITY ID  26  has been assigned a processing order  2 , which means that it goes second. If additional AUTHORITY IDs were identified in this step, they would each be assigned a processing order and each would in turn be processed according to that order. 
     Starting with AUTHORITY ID  27 , with processing order  1 , we start at block  601  of  FIG. 6 . The jurisdiction eligibility determination method is looked up in block  607 , using the table in  FIG. 8A . The modified data is then processed in block  602  for jurisdictional eligibility determination by the jurisdiction determination method US_COUNTY_JD_METHOD that corresponds to AUTHORITY  27 . In  FIG. 8B , AUTHORITY  27  is mapped to US_COUNTY_EXCEPTION METHOD that determines if there are any exceptions to the jurisdiction. In this example, this method determines that AUTHORITY  27  mapped to AL—CULLMAN COUNTY TAX (see  FIG. 7C ) does not have jurisdiction over the transaction and processing for this authority is complete. 
     The second AUTHORITY ID  26 , with the processing order  2  (see  FIG. 7A ), which corresponds to AUTHORITY AL—ARAB CITY TAX (see  FIG. 7C ), is processed next. As before, block  607  looks up the jurisdiction eligibility method in a table like the one shown in  FIG. 8A . Next, because AUTHORITY ID  26  has a valid jurisdictional eligibility evaluation, the authority goes to the next step  603  to evaluate exemptions and exceptions. Once block  604  has determined the exemption method to apply, it proceeds to  606  to apply the method to the transaction. When  606  is complete, the enhanced line item is communicated  605  to block  608 , where the tax calculation method is looked up. The method is then applied to the line item in block  609 . 
     The flexibility of the present invention is the ability to fill out the tables shown in  FIGS. 7A-7C  and  FIGS. 8A-E  with new data such as authorities, zones, tax laws, tax rules, or tax rate changes. Updated data can be loaded into the tables by any known means, but would preferably be downloaded over a network to those in need of an update. It is this independent, autonomous determination of jurisdiction and tax by each authority line item that overcomes the limitations of the prior art and produces beneficial new systems and methods for calculating taxes on any item in commerce worldwide. 
     While the invention is described and illustrated here in the context of a limited number of embodiments, the invention may be embodied in many forms without departing from the spirit of the essential characteristics of the invention. The illustrated and described embodiments, including what is described in the abstract of the disclosure, are therefore to be considered in all respects as illustrative and not restrictive. The scope of the invention is indicated by the appended claims rather than by the foregoing description, and all changes that come within the meaning and range of equivalency of the claims are intended to be embraced therein.