Skip to main content
Citation Safe

Was Smith and Commissioner of Taxation on the other side of your case?

Check their next brief before they file — Opposition Check verifies every citation in a filed brief for $49, no signup. Get Opposition Check →

Smith and Commissioner of Taxation

Court
Administrative Review Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Decided
2026-01-12
AI tool
Implied
Outcome
—
Monetary penalty
None reported

What was hallucinated

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.

Sanction teardown · Administrative Review Tribunal, Australia · 2026-01-12

Smith and Commissioner of Taxation

What happened

In Administrative Review Tribunal, Australia, a filing relied on an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool to help draft legal argument. The court identified the following problems with the citations in that filing:

  • 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.

Which AI tool

an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool. Note: Charlotin's public database records tool attribution only where a court order, brief, or reporting on the matter states it explicitly; "unidentified" or "implied" means the record indicates AI use but does not name a specific product — we do not guess.

Outcome

Not specified in source record.

How Citation Safe would have caught this

Citation Safe runs three deterministic layers before a brief is filed: (1) does the citation exist against CourtListener's database of published opinions, (2) if quoted, does that exact language appear in the source, (3) does the cited case actually support the proposition it is cited for. Fabricated case citations fail Layer 1. Fabricated or misattributed quotations fail Layer 2 even when the underlying case is real. Misrepresented holdings — a real case cited for a proposition it does not support — are the target of Layer 3. None of these checks involve asking another language model whether the citation looks right; they are lookups and text-matches against the actual source, which is why a hallucinated citation has to survive a direct lookup against the authoritative source — not another model's opinion — to earn a VERIFIED stamp; our measured false-verify rate is published live at /quality.

Check a brief before you file it → · See our live false-verify rate

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1325/Smith_and_Commissioner_of_Taxation_Australia_12_January_2026.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1325/Smith_and_Commissioner_of_Taxation_Australia_12_January_2026.pdf

Don’t be the next case in this database.

Citation Safe checks every citation against primary sources before it reaches a filing.

Try the free checkerBack to database

On the opposing side of their next motion?

Check their next brief through the same engine that would have caught this filing — $49, no signup, full annotated report you can attach to your Rule 11 or sanctions motion.

Open Opposition Check — $49Sanctions-motion template