Omar Rafique v The Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Ficha del Equipo Editorial a partir de la base mundial AI Hallucination Cases de Damien Charlotin. Verifica siempre en la fuente original.

El 6 de mayo de 2026, UKFTT (Tax Chamber) (Reino Unido) conoció un asunto en el que una parte sin abogado (litigante pro se) se apoyó en una herramienta de IA generativa (no identificada en la decisión) y el expediente registró contenido alucinado.

Qué se alucinó

• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Appellant cited 'Perrin v HMRC [2018] UKFTT 221 (TC)' in submissions; Tribunal found the citation was an AI‑hallucinated/incorrect authority and did not support the appellant's proposition.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Appellant relied on 'Moulsdale t/a Moulsdale Properties v HMRC [2021] UKFTT 271 (TC)' as supporting cancellation of penalties; Tribunal held this citation formed part of AI‑generated authorities and did not support the asserted proposition.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Appellant cited 'Hanuman Commercial Ltd v HMRC [2018] UKFTT 0565 (TC)' to argue no SDLT liability where no completion; Tribunal found the citation was incorrect/AI‑generated and did not support the appellant's contention.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Appellant cited 'Vardy Properties and another v HMRC [2012] UKFTT 564 (TC)'; Tribunal accepted the citation existed but held the case did not support the proposition advanced (misapplied authority).
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Appellant cited 'Peter Jackson (Jewellers) Ltd v HMRC [2009] UKFTT 246 (TC)'; Tribunal found the citation was correct but did not support the appellant's asserted legal proposition (misapplied authority).

Desenlace

Warning. Sanción profesional: No.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de /documents/2155/Omar_Rafique_v_The_Commissioners_for_HMRC-2026_UKFTT_673_TC.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

¿Conoces un caso que falte, o uno colombiano que debamos cubrir a fondo? Escríbenos.