Cases › made things up › LR-2026-0438
Clinco v. Commissioner: legal hallucinations and evidentiary failures in AI-assisted filing
Preliminary Why: Publisher not yet named · subject to change
Status: no action reported
No source states: loss or records, developer and model, agent tool, could do, deployer.
In Clinco v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2026-16, the taxpayer disputed IRS income reconstruction and depreciation for a 2015 joint return. Counsel argued that a Notice of Deficiency was invalid for lacking a signature and cited several cases in support. When the Tax Court reviewed the citations, it found that the cases did not exist and that the brief bore marks of AI generation. The court rejected the signature argument on its merits, upheld the deficiencies for unreported income, and disallowed the depreciation deductions. The decision will be entered under Rule 155. The court warned that submitting fictitious caselaw risks sanctions.
What happened
What was done
No source states an action or fix.
Risks
Sorted by rule from the case's fields; not yet read from the sources.
Controls
ApplicationDid not exist Grounding and fact checks
Control failure chain
L1 · ModelProvider not namedModel provider
No source mentions a control at this layer.
Model version not linked to a model card.
L2 · HarnessHarness not namedAgent framework vendor
No source mentions a control at this layer.
L3 · ApplicationDeployer not namedDeployer
Other controls for this risk at this layer, not mentioned in the sources: Human approval for high-impact actions, Output filtering and redaction, People told they are dealing with AI.
L4 · Infrastructure / targetOrganisation hit
No source mentions a control at this layer.
EffectiveNot effectiveNot effective (bypassed)Did not existNot stated in sourcesNot yet checkedAttacker's ownOrder: model · harness · application · target
Controls for this risk: result in this incident
| Control | Part of the system | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Grounding and fact checks | L3 Application | Did not exist |
| Human approval for high-impact actions | L3 Application | Not stated in sources |
| People told they are dealing with AI | L3 Application | Not stated in sources |
| Output filtering and redaction | L3 Application | Not stated in sources |
Evidence
No source states: what the AI was doing, what it reached or did, how it was caught, when it happened, when it was found, how many records were exposed, the direct loss, a count of the other parties affected, any court case, the cause, what set it off, what was done.
Show the full account: 3 items from the primary sources
What happened, in order
- 2015 The 2015 joint return at issue was filed.
- 2015-05 Two properties were placed in service.
Not dated in the sources:
- The Court analysed the citations and found the cases did not exist.
Show every field, with its source and grade
What happened
Impact
Context
Notes on gaps
No date of occurrence, opinion date, or disclosure date beyond the press article date is stated; the 2026-02-09 date is the press article's date. No sanction is stated for this case. The source is a secondary press review, prepared with assistance from NotebookLM, not the court opinion itself. No remediations are stated.
LR-2026-0438 · version 1 · published 2026-11-01 after automatic checks; not yet checked field by field by a person · JSON