Riddle Aggregates v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Tax Court · Mar 18, 2026
What happened in this matter?
The Tax Court record documents an expert witness's admission to using AI tools, including Grammarly, ChatGPT, and Gemini, in preparing appraisal reports. Following challenges regarding inaccurate citations and alleged AI-generated hallucinations, the expert's reports were withdrawn from the court record.
- Why the court cared
- The court permitted questioning into the expert's use of AI to establish a foundation for challenges to the reliability and credibility of the expert's reports under Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
- Why it matters now
- This case highlights the risks of using generative AI for legal or expert research without rigorous verification. It demonstrates how citation errors and AI-assisted drafting can lead to the exclusion of expert testimony and damage professional credibility in federal court.
Why this matter is tracked
In a Tax Court proceeding, an expert witness faced intense cross-examination regarding the accuracy of citations and block quotations within appraisal reports. The petitioner challenged the expert's credibility, alleging that the reports contained numerous errors and fabricated citations, potentially resulting from the expert's use of artificial intelligence tools including Grammarly, ChatGPT, and Gemini. The expert admitted to using these tools and acknowledged multiple errors, which were addressed via errata sheets. The petitioner argued that these inaccuracies, characterized as hallucinations, undermined the reliability of the expert's testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The court examined the expert's quality control processes and the extent of AI involvement in drafting the reports, ultimately leading to the withdrawal of the reports from the record.
This case highlights the risks of using generative AI for legal or expert research without rigorous verification. It demonstrates how citation errors and AI-assisted drafting can lead to the exclusion of expert testimony and damage professional credibility in federal court.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
Expert confirms use of Grammarly, ChatGPT, and Gemini.
Trial testimony and voir dire regarding the admissibility of expert reports.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
1 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Legal Norm
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Riddle Aggregates v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue?
- The Tax Court record documents an expert witness's admission to using AI tools, including Grammarly, ChatGPT, and Gemini, in preparing appraisal reports. Following challenges regarding inaccurate citations and alleged AI-generated hallucinations, the expert's reports were withdrawn from the court record.
- Why does Riddle Aggregates v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue matter for legal AI risk?
- This case highlights the risks of using generative AI for legal or expert research without rigorous verification. It demonstrates how citation errors and AI-assisted drafting can lead to the exclusion of expert testimony and damage professional credibility in federal court.
- What does the public record establish about Riddle Aggregates v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue?
- 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 Riddle Aggregates v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue 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.