HomeCasesSmith and Commissioner of Taxation

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Smith and Commissioner of Taxation

Administrative Review Tribunal · Jan 12, 2026

AustraliaEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authoritytax

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | 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).

Why the court cared: Fabricated: Case Law | 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). || Fabricated: Case Law | 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. || Fabricated: Case Law | 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. || Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited 'Case V164 (1989)', a purported authority that the Tribunal identified as non-existent (hallucinated). || Misrepresented: Case Law | 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. || Misrepresented: Case Law | 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.
Why it matters now: AI also misapplies real cases—verify both that the cite exists and that it actually supports the proposition claimed.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

AI also misapplies real cases—verify both that the cite exists and that it actually supports the proposition claimed.

Record details

CourtAdministrative Review Tribunal

Jurisdictioninternational

CircuitNot recorded

DateJan 12, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeSee source

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

Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | 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).
Fabricated: Case Law | 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.
Fabricated: Case Law | 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.
Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited 'Case V164 (1989)', a purported authority that the Tribunal identified as non-existent (hallucinated).
Misrepresented: Case Law | 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.
Misrepresented: Case Law | 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.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Smith and Commissioner of Taxation?: Fabricated: Case Law | 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).
Why does Smith and Commissioner of Taxation matter for legal AI risk?: AI also misapplies real cases—verify both that the cite exists and that it actually supports the proposition claimed.
What does the public record establish about Smith and Commissioner of Taxation?: Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
Which source supports this Smith and Commissioner of Taxation 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.

QQQJ and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS)Administrative Review Tribunal · May 22, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Body by Michael Pty Ltd and Industry Innovation and Science AustraliaAdministrative Review Tribunal · Jan 24, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Omar Rafique v The Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and CustomsUKFTT (Tax Chamber) · May 6, 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)

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

Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

AI also misapplies real cases—verify both that the cite exists and that it actually supports the proposition claimed.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | 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.

Fabricated: Case Law | 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.

Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited 'Case V164 (1989)', a purported authority that the Tribunal identified as non-existent (hallucinated).

Misrepresented: Case Law | 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.

Misrepresented: Case Law | 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.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Smith and Commissioner of Taxation?

Why does Smith and Commissioner of Taxation matter for legal AI risk?

AI also misapplies real cases—verify both that the cite exists and that it actually supports the proposition claimed.

What does the public record establish about Smith and Commissioner of Taxation?

Which source supports this Smith and Commissioner of Taxation 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.