In Bodrul Zzaman v HMRC [2025] TC09520, the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) found that a taxpayer’s use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to write his statement of case did not provide grounds to allow his High-Income Child Benefit Charge appeal. The case law cited failed to provide authorities for the arguments made.
In 2018-19, Mr Zzaman’s adjusted net income exceeded £50,000. His income was higher than his spouse's and they received Child Benefit.
- In April 2021, HMRC identified that Mr Zzaman had not notified his chargeability to the High-Income Child Benefit Charge (HICBC).
- Following correspondence between Mr Zzaman and HMRC, in January 2023, HMRC raised a Discovery assessment of £2,501.
- Mr Zzaman Appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (FTT).
Mr Zzaman represented himself at the FTT and confirmed that his written statement of case had been prepared with the assistance of Artificial Intelligence (AI). Various arguments were advanced by Mr Zzaman, including:
- The decision in HMRC v Jason Wilkes applied to his circumstances.
- The retrospective discovery assessment legislation in s.97 Finance Act 2022 was unfair and violated the rule of law.
- Calculating Adjusted Net Income (ANI) was difficult, especially for a PAYE employee with fluctuating income.
- HMRC had access to all of his income and tax records and should have notified him of any additional liabilities.
- The HICBC itself was unfair and breached his and his wife’s human rights.
The FTT noted that some grounds of appeal were unclear, and Mr Zzaman could not expand on them significantly in his oral submissions.
The FTT found that:
- Retrospective legislation in the context of tax in the UK is not, in principle, unlawful.
- No specific arguments were put forward as to why the retrospective legislation in s.97 Finance Act 2022 was itself unlawful.
- The cases cited by Mr Zzaman in support of the Wilkes and retrospective legislation arguments did not assist the FTT in considering the appeal. One case could not be located, and others concerned topics such as:
- Legitimate expectations in relation to miscarriages of justice.
- Whether a husband attempting sexual intercourse with his wife against her will was immune from a charge to attempted rape.
- Wilkes did not apply as Mr Zzaman had not appealed in writing on or before 30 June 2021.
- Whether calculating ANI was difficult or not did not provide a ground for appeal.
- While it may be difficult to calculate a tax liability, that does not provide grounds for the tax liability not to arise.
- HMRC have no general duty to inform a taxpayer whether they are liable to the HICBC; it is up to the taxpayer to monitor their own financial situation.
- The cases cited by Mr Zzaman gave no authority for the general proposition that HMRC had an obligation to notify a taxpayer of a HICBC liability.
- While a taxpayer may believe the law is unfair or unjust, the FTT could not consider whether the law is fair or not.
- The cases relied on by Mr Zzaman were either not relevant to the argument or could not be located by the FTT.
- There was nothing in Mr Zzaman’s assertions that led the FTT to believe that the HICBC breached his human rights.
HMRC’s assessment was made in time, was validly issued, and assessed the correct amount. The appeal was dismissed.
Editor’s comment
The FTT observed that although some of Mr Zzaman’s case citations were inaccurate and did not provide authorities for the arguments made, there did not appear to be any fictitious cases, unlike in Felicity Harber v HMRC.
The importance of human checks was emphasised, particularly as AI tools may not fully ‘understand’ the question being asked.
The FTT went on to suggest how the dangers of AI in tax appeals can be reduced by:
- The use of clear prompts.
- Asking the tool to cite specific paragraphs of authorities, so that it is easy to check if the paragraphs support the argument being advanced.
- Checking to see if the tool has access to live internet data.
- Asking the tool not to provide an answer if it is not sure.
- Asking the tool for information on the shortcomings of the case being advanced.
Useful guides on this topic
High-Income Child Benefit Tax Charge
What is the High-Income Child Benefit Charge? Who pays it? Can you appeal against an assessment? Are there any useful cases from the tax tribunals?
Adjusted Net Income
What is Adjusted Net Income? How do I calculate it? Why is it important?
Discovery Assessments
When can HMRC issue an assessment outside of the normal statutory time limits? What conditions must be met? Can HMRC issue two alternative assessments for the same period? What are your rights of appeal and defences?
ChatGPT fluffs legal arguments
In Felicity Harber v HMRC [2023] TC09101, ‘artificial intelligence’ (AI) failed to assist a taxpayer in her appeal against penalties after it emerged that it had invented the case citations she had relied on in her defence. The First Tier Tribunal (FTT) found that this was not the first time that AI created fake cases.
External link