[Firm name] review checklist for AI-drafted tax work
Replace everything in [square brackets].
Checklist details
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Firm | [Firm name] |
| Owner of this checklist | [Name, role] |
| Approved AI tools for tax work | [List] |
| Effective from | [Date] |
| Next review | [Date] |
1. Which tax work AI may draft
| Tier | Typical work | Our examples |
|---|---|---|
| AI may draft, normal review | Research summaries, first drafts of client explanations of settled rules, lists of documents a client needs to provide. | [Examples] |
| AI may draft, enhanced review (second reviewer) | Advice letters, workpaper commentary, anything applying a rule to a client’s specific facts. | [Examples] |
| AI may assist, not draft | Positions on contested or novel areas, anything going to a tax authority, private ruling applications, amendments and voluntary disclosures. | [Examples] |
2. What every AI draft must arrive with
- The facts it relied on, listed, with any it assumed marked as assumed.
- The provision, ruling or guidance it applied, by name and number.
- The jurisdiction and the income year or date the answer applies to.
- Anything it was unsure about.
This does not make the output right. It makes the errors visible.
3. Where AI tax errors cluster
| Where | What to check |
|---|---|
| Stale law | Ask what date the answer is good to, and check any rule in the news in the last two years against the current primary source. |
| Thresholds and rates | Check every threshold, rate, cap and cut-off date against the ATO, HMRC or IRS page for the right year. |
| Jurisdiction mixing | Watch for another country’s terms or allowances, or a state rule presented as federal. If the answer would read the same in another country, be suspicious. |
| Confident, fabricated citations | Open every citation. If you cannot find it on the regulator’s site or a legislation database in a minute, treat it as invented until proven otherwise. |
4. The review checklist
Tick each line or write why it does not apply. A draft with an unticked line does not go to the client.
| # | Check | Done or why not |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | The facts the AI relied on match the client file, and every assumed fact has been confirmed with the client or removed. | Blank |
| 2 | The jurisdiction and income year are stated and correct. | Blank |
| 3 | Every provision, ruling, case and guidance reference has been opened at its source and says what the draft claims. | Blank |
| 4 | Every threshold, rate, cap and date has been checked against the official source for the right year. | Blank |
| 5 | Any rule changed in the last two years has been checked against current law, not the AI’s summary. | Blank |
| 6 | The answer does not borrow terms or rules from another country. | Blank |
| 7 | Calculations have been reworked independently, by hand or in a tool that gives the same result for the same inputs. | Blank |
| 8 | The reasoning holds if one key fact is different, and the client letter says which facts the advice depends on. | Blank |
| 9 | The reviewer would give the same advice without the AI draft in front of them. | Blank |
| 10 | The work is in the right tier, and enhanced-review work has had a second reviewer. | Blank |
| 11 | Client information went only into a tool the firm has approved, with client permission where needed. | Blank |
| 12 | The AI use, the checks made and the reviewer’s name are recorded on the file. | Blank |
Line 9 matters most. If the reviewer could not have reached the advice alone, they are not reviewing it, they are trusting it.
5. File note: AI use on this job
| Field | Record |
|---|---|
| Client and job | [Client, job reference] |
| Tool used, and for which part of the work | [Tool, part] |
| Prompt or instruction (or a reference to the firm’s standard one) | [Prompt or reference] |
| Completed checklist, with what was corrected | [Attach or summarise corrections] |
| Facts confirmed with the client after the AI draft | [Facts, date confirmed] |
| Reviewer’s name and date | [Name, date] |
In Australia, section 30 of the TPB Code Determination requires records that correctly record the tax agent services you provided, and TPB(GS) 55/2026 says the AI review steps should be documented.
6. Professional indemnity: ask your broker
- Does the policy mention AI tools, with any exclusion, condition or notification duty?
- Does the proposal form ask about AI use, and is our last answer still accurate?
- Would the insurer expect a documented review process like this one?
Broker’s answers received on [date], filed at [location].
UK firms will find the matching standards in Professional Conduct in Relation to Taxation, and US firms in the due diligence rules in Circular 230. The source of truth for Australian practitioners is the TPB’s AI guidance. This is general information, not legal or insurance advice.