Smith and Commissioner of Taxation
Administrative Review Tribunal · Jan 12, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Administrative Review Tribunal
- Record ID
- smith-and-commissioner-of-taxation-2026-01-12
- Observed outcome
- The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's decisions in part, finding the applicant carried on a dog breeding enterprise and remitting certain penalties, while affirming other aspects of the Commissioner's assessment.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The Tribunal identified that the applicant relied on multiple hallucinated case citations and misrepresented the holdings of existing authorities. The decision-maker explicitly characterized these citations as hallucinations and noted that the applicant's reliance on them failed to support his legal propositions or meet his burden of proof.
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.
AI also misapplies real cases—verify both that the cite exists and that it actually supports the proposition claimed.
Failure modes and consequences
- Hallucinated_case_law
- Misrepresentation_of_legal_authority
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Tax
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- unspecified
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Administrative review of tax assessments and penalty decisions by the Administrative Review Tribunal of Australia.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The decision references the use of artificial intelligence in preparing filings.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.