How it works
Every incumbent audit tool helps an auditor sample better. This removes the need to sample — by making both halves of the accuracy problem deterministic.
100% Navy veteran-owned. Patent pending.
The state supplies the data it already collects
Taxpayer extracts in the formats states already request in an e-audit: flat file, CSV, Excel. General ledger detail, sales and purchase journals, exemption certificates, master files. No new collection process — the state already has this. The product reads what the Computer Audit Specialist already opens in ACL or VEdit.
Jurisdiction and taxability — both determined
The patent-pending engine addresses both halves of the accuracy problem. Jurisdiction assignment: the parcel polygon is tested against the jurisdiction boundary polygon — in, out, or bisected. Product taxability: the controlling statute, regulation, and court decision are read directly, yielding the same answer for the same product and the same law, every time. With both elements deterministic, the calculation is arithmetic — and the citation is attached to every line.
The auditor exports workpapers
Output into the formats the auditor already files into their case-management system — GenTax, TaxMaster, whatever your state runs. The tool coexists downstream; it does not need to integrate upstream.
Sampling comparison — the honest self-test
Run your state’s own sample method beside the census on the same data and see the delta. If the census does not beat the sample on a real dataset, we should know first. This is the demo that sells the company — and the methodology that proves it.
Sample vs Census
| Statistical Sample | Census Audit |
|---|---|
| Examines a subset, projects the error rate | Examines every transaction |
| 75–80% confidence by design | Line-level, statute-cited determination |
| Projection is what taxpayers appeal | Nothing to project — nothing was estimated |
| Auditor defends the sample method | Auditor cites the law |
| Small per-item errors compound across strata | Each line stands or falls on its own |
| Gatta v. Director (NJ, 2018) — sample invalidated | Built so a Gatta challenge never arises |
Why it’s defensible
“The small per-item errors that occurred in certain sample period months were then propagated from a sample period to the entire audit period.”
New Jersey Tax Court, Gatta v. Director, Dkt. No. 000014-2014 (Apr. 16, 2018) — invalidating a sales-tax sample assessment.A census removes the variable the court identified. That single fact is worth more than any feature list to a state auditor whose last assessment was cut in half on appeal.
See a census run on your data
The fastest way to evaluate this is a direct comparison. We run a census beside your state’s own sample method on the same data and show you the delta.
Request a comparison