Ad/Marketing Communication
This legal article/report forms part of my ongoing legal commentary on the use of artificial intelligence within the justice system. It supports my work in teaching, lecturing, and writing about AI and the law and is published to promote my practice. Not legal advice. Not Direct/Public Access. All instructions via clerks at Doughty Street Chambers. This legal article concerns AI Law.
Summary of the Case
In Latif v HM Revenue & Customs [2024] UKFTT 277, the Appellant, who was assessed by HMRC with unpaid High Income Child Benefit Charges (HICBC) and penalties had failed to notify HMRC about his HICBC liability from 2012-2020. He appealed against both the tax assessments and the penalties, arguing that he had not been properly informed and thus should not be penalised.
The tribunal examined extensive evidence, including the Appellant’s correspondence and interaction history with HMRC. Ultimately, his appeal was dismissed. The tribunal concluded that he had not adequately responded when initially prompted by HMRC, did not have a reasonable excuse for his oversight, and had failed to promptly remedy his situation once notified.
How AI Featured in the Case
Interestingly, AI made an unexpected appearance during proceedings. The Appellant provided HMRC with a letter dated 14 May 2021, purportedly his original appeal.
However, confusion arose when HMRC found a different, original version of this letter in their records. Upon questioning, the Appellant explained he’d used ChatGPT, an AI language model, to rewrite his original letter, aiming to make it more concise and formal.
The tribunal noted that while Mr Latif didn’t intend to deceive, the rewritten letter significantly changed the content and omitted crucial details. This caused confusion about the nature and timing of his appeal, influencing whether his case could benefit from certain legal protections following the Wilkes litigation concerning discovery assessments.
Comments on the AI Aspect and Future Implications
This is another case demonstrating how the use of AI tools like ChatGPT can unintentionally alter crucial details or context in legal communications. The use of ChatGPT to summarise evidence inadvertently complicated the appeal by introducing discrepancies that ultimately undermined the case.
This is another reminder that lawyers and litigants alike should be cautious when employing AI to rewrite or clarify official communications, ensuring transparency and consistency with original documentation. AI tools are invaluable for clarity and efficiency, but we must remain vigilant about preserving the integrity and accuracy essential in legal contexts. This case serves as another valuable lesson in responsibly integrating AI into legal processes.
