First ChatGPT FTT case

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukftt/tc/2023/1007

Didn't find your answer?

Needless to say the taxpayer was easily rumbled.

Felicity Harber v The Commissioners for HMRC - Find case law (nationalarchives.gov.uk)

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukftt/tc/2023/1007

Maybe if as suggested by the judge she had instead contacted an accountant etc.  for a chat CGT that would have been better.

Replies (14)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By rmillaree
08th Dec 2023 15:30

lol did they actually even look at some of the detail of those fake cases - comedy stuff (fair play that they even looked at em if they were fake)

Thanks (0)
Replying to rmillaree:
avatar
By FactChecker
08th Dec 2023 17:15

If only it had stopped at the contents of the fictitious cases ... like any good 'gift of the gab' merchant she thought on her feet - so when the fictional nature of 'her' cases was highlighted, she attempted to go on the attack (but from a position of ignorance):

"Mrs Harber then asked how the Tribunal could be confident that the cases relied on by HMRC and included in the Authorities Bundle were genuine.
The Tribunal pointed out that HMRC had provided the full copy of each of those judgments and not simply a summary, and the judgments were also available on publicly accessible websites such as that of the FTT and the British and Irish Legal Information Institute (“BAILLI”).
Mrs Harber had been unaware of those websites."
WHOOPS!

Thanks (4)
VAT
By Jason Croke
08th Dec 2023 15:38

ChatGPT is going to be the equivalent of when you read stories about a lorry driver who drives off a cliff or into a tiny street and gets edged and blames the Satnav, as if the driver wasn't in control of the vehicle at all times.

Like people trying to DIY their tax planning, this legal case lark is a lot more nuanced and complicated than just quoting Baker or Perrin.

Thanks (2)
Replying to Jason Croke:
Intercity
By Mr Hankey
08th Dec 2023 17:05

Indeed, or like when Amazon Alexa suggests touching a live a plug with penny.

(source: www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-59810383)

Thanks (2)
avatar
By Tax Dragon
08th Dec 2023 21:17

Hilarious, thanks Justin!

It is a bit depressing that, after all these years of AW, no case hase been thrown out for reliance on this forum, but AI has made it to that stage while it still needs its nappy changing.

Thanks (3)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
avatar
By Justin Bryant
09th Dec 2023 12:06

But at the same time it's good to know that no-one is that stupid thankfully (i.e. to wittingly rely directly in their FTT case on answers in this rather nutty forum - indeed ChatGPT's answers were probably based on your very comments here!).

Thanks (0)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
09th Dec 2023 20:10

So indirectly someone did rely on this forum? That's... actually that's worse, you're right! I've frequently said you'd have to be crazymad to do that.

But wait, the AI quoted me without c[red]iting its source?! Let's get it back in the courtroom, I want to sue!

Thanks (3)
avatar
By Justin Bryant
11th Dec 2023 15:33
Thanks (0)
Ivor Windybottom
By Ivor Windybottom
11th Dec 2023 17:52

Law is now being drafted using ChatGPT:
https://www.theregister.com/2023/12/02/chatgpt_law_brazil/

Thanks (0)
Replying to Ivor Windybottom:
avatar
By Justin Bryant
11th Dec 2023 18:15

Well, it would be hard to do a worse job than the incumbent humans in that regard.
https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/tax/hmrc-policy/why-do-we-get-bad-tax-law

Thanks (2)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
avatar
By FactChecker
12th Dec 2023 15:46

Good to see the Independent taking on the mantle of the Grauniad ... with a URL that refers to a chatgot! Must still be using human sub-editors/proof-readers ...

Thanks (2)
avatar
By Justin Bryant
02nd Jan 2024 14:08
Thanks (0)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
avatar
By FactChecker
02nd Jan 2024 17:06

Interesting, if unsurprising, peek below the surface of the interaction between the majority of those who need legal advice and the legal profession ... BUT:

"Judicial guidance on generative AI published this month seemed to confirm that the courts in England and Wales will not be following other jurisdictions in requiring parties to declare where AI has been used in preparing materials that are submitted to the court."
There's no further comment on WHY this is the situation?

Thanks (3)