Zzaman v. HMRC

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

El 3 de abril de 2025, (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. Verify the existence of the case or cite correctly if it exists.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Unilever Italia (ECJ, C-443/98) was invoked as relevant to retrospective tax fairness; the Tribunal found it concerned national technical regulations and was irrelevant.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. R v R was cited to support arguments on retrospective legislation and the rule of law; the Tribunal held it was of tangential relevance at best.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Bhatt Murphy was cited on legitimate expectation to support the appeal; the Tribunal held it was not relevant and, in any event, outside its jurisdiction.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. National & Provincial Building Society v UK was cited to argue retrospective tax legislation was unlawful; the Tribunal noted the case actually found such legislation lawful.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Garnmoss was relied upon to suggest HMRC had a general duty to notify HICBC liabilities; the Tribunal held it addressed VAT surcharge notification and did not establish such a duty.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Hok was cited to support a general HMRC duty to notify HICBC liabilities; the Tribunal held it concerned notification of default and did not create a general duty.
• Tergiversación de norma legal. Appellant asserted that his 11 June 2021 phone calls amounted to an appeal notice for s97 FA 2022 purposes; the Tribunal held an appeal must be in writing (s31A TMA) and the calls pre-dated any assessment.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Verify the existence of the case or cite correctly if it exists.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. James Robertson v HMRC was cited in support of general unfairness arguments; the Tribunal found it not relevant to the issues.
• Tergiversación de norma legal. Appellant asserted a general legal duty on HMRC to inform taxpayers of HICBC liability; the Tribunal found no authority and stated no such duty exists under the self-assessment regime.

Desenlace

Warning. Sanción profesional: No.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de /documents/452/Zzaman_v._HMRC_UK_April_3_2025.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

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