Ai – Not a replacement for professional advice…. yet?

In a recent case, Harber v HMRC (First-tier Tribunal) on 4 December 2023, the taxpayer (Harber) was appealing a penalty of £3,265.11 imposed by HMRC for failing to declare a capital gains on the disposal of a residential property.

Under the CGT rules if you dispose of a second home or rental property, you have 60 days to calculate, declare and pay any tax due or face the possibility of penalties.

Harber appealed on the grounds of reasonable excuse, her poor mental health, and that it was reasonable for her to be ignorant of the law.

This is all standard and the tribunal found that there was no reasonable excuse. But the interesting thing in this case, is that Harber asked a friend who worked in a solicitor’s office for some help, and they provided her with some evidence of past decisions that supported her case. The issue was, it turns out, that these cases were not genuine and were in fact written by ai.

The ai had “made” up these past First Tier Tribunal judgments and Harber had inadvertently relied on false cases to support her argument.

The Tribunal found that Harber had been unaware that these cases were not genuine and accepted that she did not know how to check if they were genuine.

So, what does this case mean for ai?

Our position is that Ai is a game changer – it can speed up writing in a lot of areas but currently, as I write this, you still need the advice of a professional to make sure the output of the ai is correct. If you are relying on the information, particularly if you are using it for anything technical or legal, then you need to check it very carefully as it is unregulated and it would be wise to see the advice of a professional before using it.