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

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

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

UKFTT (Tax Chamber) · May 6, 2026

GBEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authoritytax

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | 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. Outcome: Warning.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Warning; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in UKFTT (Tax Chamber), making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in UKFTT (Tax Chamber), making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

CourtUKFTT (Tax Chamber)

Jurisdictioninternational

CircuitNot recorded

DateMay 6, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeWarning

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Warning

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

5 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Fabricated: Case Law | 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.
Fabricated: Case Law | 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.
Fabricated: Case Law | 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.
Misrepresented: Case Law | 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).
Misrepresented: Case Law | 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).

Questions this record answers

What happened in Omar Rafique v The Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs?: Fabricated: Case Law | 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. Outcome: Warning.
Why does Omar Rafique v The Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in UKFTT (Tax Chamber), making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Omar Rafique v The Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs?: The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
Which source supports this Omar Rafique v The Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs summary?: The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.

Related matters

Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.

Smith and Commissioner of TaxationAdministrative Review Tribunal · Jan 12, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Zzaman v. HMRCFirst-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) · Apr 3, 2025pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)HMRC v. GunnarsonUpper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) · Jul 23, 2025pro se + fake citations Giggs v. Michel (dba Soma MD Advanced Medical Aesthetics)CRT · Jul 16, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Birsingh v. Little Wheel, LLC, et al.M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 10, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Kevin Krzeminski v. Janine McQuillanSC New York · Jul 6, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court

Evidence boundary

The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Tracked discrepancy record

5 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Fabricated: Case Law | 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.

Fabricated: Case Law | 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.

Misrepresented: Case Law | 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).

Misrepresented: Case Law | 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).

Questions this record answers

What happened in Omar Rafique v The Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs?

Why does Omar Rafique v The Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs matter for legal AI risk?

What does the public record establish about Omar Rafique v The Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs?

Which source supports this Omar Rafique v The Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs summary?

The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.