There is no partner programme yet. Here is what there is instead.
No tiers, no margin table, no reseller agreement. What exists is the structure a partnership would be built on — and it is documented, so you can judge the technical half of the question today and ask about the commercial half.
Each one wants a different thing from this.
A practice is putting its name to the output. An integrator is estimating work. A platform is deciding whether to build on somebody else’s dependency. Those are three different questions and one proposition cannot answer them.
Accounting and tax practices
A firm that would use this on client work and wants a relationship rather than a subscription.
The part of a practice's work this touches is research and computation, not the judgement. Every position comes back with the authority behind it and a case file a reviewer can open, so what a partner is putting their name to is inspectable before they sign it — which is the only basis on which a practice can responsibly use a system like this at all.
How this works for a practiceEvery legal claim cites a specific section of a real official document.Still open: Whether a practice relationship differs commercially from an ordinary licence is not decided.
Technology integrators
A consultancy or engineering team embedding this in somebody else's stack.
The answer contract is public, including the shape of a refusal, so the integration can be scoped from the documentation rather than from a sales conversation. The fields carrying the caveats are the ones a client's interface has to grow a state for, and they are all published — which means an estimate can be made before anybody is committed to anything.
The answer contractAnswers are pinned to a corpus release, model version, and calculator version, so any answer can be reproduced later.Still open: There is no certification, no partner tier and no referral arrangement. Integration is on the same public documentation everybody else uses.
Platforms and resellers
A product that would put this behind its own interface, or sell it on.
Tenancy is structural rather than a configuration flag: data is scoped per tenant and the role matrix applies per site, which is what makes a per-customer arrangement a deployment question rather than a rebuild. Self-hosting is a supported path with no third-party model in the request path, so a platform is not reselling a dependency on somebody else's inference bill.
How tenancy is enforcedEvery tenant-owned model inherits a workspace and site scoped base class, and queries always filter by tenant.Still open: Whether the product can be presented under a partner's own brand is not something this site can answer today. It is a commercial and contractual question, not a technical one, and nobody has settled it.
Four questions. One has an answer.
Which of these are settled decides whether it is worth your quarter. Finding that out one call at a time is the expensive way to learn it, so all four are here including the ones where the answer is that nobody has decided.
What is the margin structure?
Not decidedNot decided. There is no published price for the product itself yet, so there is certainly no partner discount schedule behind it — and a margin quoted before the list price exists is a number that will change. Ask and you will get the current position, including which parts of it are still open. Write to hello@taxorch.com.
What is the support model?
Not decidedNot decided as a contracted service level. What exists today is a support address with a stated aim of a reply within one working day, which is a commitment about our behaviour rather than a term anybody could enforce. A partner arrangement would need the second kind, and that has not been written.
What are the technical requirements?
AnsweredThis one is answered. The API is documented in full, the answer contract states what every response carries including a refusal, and the self-hosting guide publishes the machine it runs on and the readiness gates it has to pass. An integrator can scope the work from those three pages without speaking to anybody.
Can it carry our brand?
Not decidedUnanswered, and worth being precise about why. Tenancy is structural, so a per-customer deployment is not the obstacle. Whether the product may be presented under another name is a contractual question nobody has settled, and describing it as available would be inventing a term.
Say which kind you are, and the reply matches.
The form is the site’s contact form on its partnership route, which means the same published destination and the same stated reply window as every other enquiry — five working days, longer than the others on purpose, because a partnership question deserves a considered answer rather than a fast one.
There is no logo wall on this page
Because there are no partners to put on one. That element is the easiest thing on a page like this to fabricate — a customer becomes a partner, a pilot becomes a customer — so each entry here requires a public link confirming the relationship, and there are none to link to.
Read one answer contract before you scope anything.
It is the fastest way to find out whether this fits: the fields you have not thought about are the ones that carry the caveats, and they are the ones your UI will have to grow a state for.