Tips, tricks and traps of CD-ROM tax research.

• Author: Black, Robert L.
• Position: Part 2

The quantity of tax material now available on CD-ROM is staggering, and electronic tax research via CD-ROM is the state of the art. In October 1995, Part I of this article examined the benefits of CD-ROM tax research versus hard-copy research and discussed planning a research strategy, selecting the appropriate database(s), search terms and connectors, and constructing keyword search terms. That methodology enables a researcher to obtain preliminary results. Part II focuses on the steps to be taken after obtaining CD-ROM search results, including analyzing the initial results, modifying the search request when necessary, deciding when to conclude research and documenting results.

Part I of this article, published in October 1995, addressed the advantages of CD-ROM (compact discread only memory) tax research versus hard-copy research, planning a research strategy, selecting the appropriate database (s), search terms and connectors, and constructing keyword search terms. That methodology led to obtaining preliminary results from the search of a CD-ROM database.

Part II explores the steps to be taken after obtaining CD-ROM search results, including analyzing the initial results, modifying the search request for any necessary follow-up search, determining when to conclude the research and documenting the results.

Analyzing the Results

Searching a tax database typically produces some results, which need to be reviewed (even if they are eventually shown to be unproductive). To facilitate review, the CD-ROM software usually has a method of listing search results.

In reviewing preliminary search results and discovering any relevant underlying tax authority, the researcher will most likely be thinking, "Do the search results developed to this point answer the research question?" Perhaps the most difficult aspect of tax research (whether computerized or in hard copy) is to know when the best result (and, consequently, the appropriate point at which to stop researching) has been reached. This will be addressed later; for now, consider the following in analyzing the results of a CD-ROM search request:

1. Are the critical client facts sufficiently analogous to the situation addressed in the tax authority yielded by the research? 2. Is the tax authority discovered during the search the best result available? 3. Is the tax authority still relevant (i.e., has it been superseded by subsequent tax legislation, cases, rulings, etc.)? 4. Has a definitive, "on-all-fours" answer been found?(1) If the answer to any of the first three questions above is "no," the researcher probably needs to reanalyze the results and rethink the search strategy. Assuming that the initial search request has been unproductive, a follow-up search request may need to be, among other things, narrowed or broadened.

   Narrowing or Broadening a Search Request

   Generally, the tax research objective is to try to find favorable authority on point with the client's situation. While one might settle for less than perfect results because perfection cannot always be achieved, the researcher must nonetheless feel comfortable that the best possible results have been obtained. How does a researcher increase the chances of obtaining the best results? The first step is to determine if inadequate search results are the consequence of too few or too many hits.

   Too Few Hits

   If too few hits have been retrieved, focus on the search request. Is it too narrow in scope? Consider the following possibilities that could prompt the need for a revised search request when the current results are too narrow or otherwise unacceptable:

   * Is the fight" database(s) being searched? Consider alternative approaches. * Are all keywords appropriate and sufficiently broad in scope, or should a search with additional keywords be considered? If the terminology is believed to be inadequate, use a thesaurus to broaden the number of keywords. * Should wildcards be used in the search request to obtain permutations of the keyword(s); Using wildcards (e.g., the asterisk (*) and question mark ;)) can prove very productive. However, tax researchers are often surprised at the number of derivatives of a root word that yield unrelated (and unwanted) results. * Are all the pertinent facts known, or do additional facts need to be ascertained, Similarly, are all assumptions correct or must additional assumptions be made? (A review of the facts and assumptions may also yield new keywords.) * Consider discarding the least-necessary keywords to any subconcept that may be artificially restricting access to the answer. For instance, avoiding use of certain keywords with the AND connector (see below) may be appropriate. * Should connectors be reordered or modified; For example, the use of OR might be more appropriate than the use of AND. Similarly, the requirement that keywords be within x number of words" of one another may be overly restrictive. As a general rule, do not start with a "within x number of words" restriction unless it is...