Smith and Commissioner of Taxation
Administrative Review Tribunal · Australia, 12 de enero de 2026 · Fabricación. Ficha verificada del Equipo Editorial.
Ficha del Equipo Editorial a partir de la base mundial AI Hallucination Cases de Damien Charlotin. Verifica siempre en la fuente original.
El 12 de enero de 2026, Administrative Review Tribunal (Australia) 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. Applicant cited 'AAT Case [2011] AATA 206' as supporting reconstructed records; Tribunal noted the actual decision at that citation is Barclay and Repatriation Commission [2011] AATA 206 and it does not support the Applicant's proposition (misrepresentation/misapplication).
- Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Applicant cited a Tribunal decision 'Re Jowett v Commissioner of Taxation [2011] AATA 433' that does not exist; Tribunal noted the citation was a hallucination and the actual decision at that citation does not support the Applicant's point.
- Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Applicant relied on 'Harris v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [2019] AATA 2332' which the Tribunal said does not exist under that name (the cited docket corresponds to a different migration case); characterised as a hallucinated citation.
- Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Applicant cited 'Case V164 (1989)', a purported authority that the Tribunal identified as non-existent (hallucinated).
- Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Applicant relied on Vidler v Commissioner of Taxation [2010] FCAFC 59 for reconstructed-records principle; Tribunal held Vidler is irrelevant to that proposition and was misapplied by the Applicant.
- Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Applicant linked to Federal Commissioner of Land Tax v Jowett [1930] HCA 51 as if it supported reconstructed-records arguments; Tribunal said the High Court decision is unrelated and was misapplied.
Desenlace
Sanción profesional: No.
Ficha del caso
| Caso | Smith and Commissioner of Taxation |
| Jurisdicción | Administrative Review Tribunal |
| País | Australia |
| Fecha | 12 de enero de 2026 |
| Quién usó IA | Pro Se Litigant |
| Herramienta | Implied |
| Área del derecho | tax |
Fuentes: aporte de /documents/1325/Smith_and_Commissioner_of_Taxation_Australia_12_January_2026.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.
¿Conoces un caso que falte, o uno colombiano que debamos cubrir a fondo? Escríbenos.