Detailed Answer

    AI is best treated as a research assistant, not an oracle. The professional remains responsible for the advice given to the client, regardless of how the underlying research was produced.

    The right workflow is: define the question precisely, use AI to surface candidate sources, read the primary sources yourself, draft the analysis, and have a senior reviewer sign off.

    Cassandra supports tax research workflows. Check any cited provision, ruling or case directly before relying on the draft.

    The Problems Professionals Face

    Step 1

    Where to start

    → Frame the research question with the specific legislation or transaction

    Step 2

    What comes after step 1

    → Use AI to surface candidate primary sources (legislation, rulings, cases)

    Step 3

    What comes after step 2

    → Read each cited primary source directly

    Step 4

    What comes after step 3

    → Draft the analysis grounded in those primary sources

    Step 5

    What comes after step 4

    → Have a TPB-registered tax agent or CA/CPA review before client use

    Key Capabilities

    Common pitfall

    Copy-pasting AI output into client advice without review

    Common pitfall

    Trusting AI tools that don't cite primary sources

    Common pitfall

    Using general-purpose AI (ChatGPT, Claude) for Australian tax — they hallucinate section numbers

    Common pitfall

    Not documenting which AI tool was used in the file note

    Why generic AI is risky for 'how to use AI for tax research'

    • Generic AI tools hallucinate Australian legislative section numbers and ATO ruling identifiers
    • AI can misidentify the applicable version of a provision
    • Check the status and binding effect of any ATO guidance cited
    • Using unverifiable AI in professional tax work risks the TPB Code of Professional Conduct

    How Cassandra handles this

    • Australian tax and legal research workflows
    • Check any cited ITAA section, ATO ruling or case against the official text
    • Independent professional review is required before relying on an output
    • Check the relevant income year, amendments and status directly with the issuing authority

    Editorial Standards

    ABN 70 659 258 367
    Australian-registered company
    Publisher
    Cassandra Research — see /about
    Review Required
    An appropriately qualified practitioner must verify the facts, sources and conclusions
    Primary Sources
    ITAA 1997/1936, GST Act 1999, FBTAA, Corporations Act 2001
    Last Updated
    2026-06-01
    Corrections Policy
    See /corrections

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Use AI to accelerate the discovery phase — surfacing relevant legislation, rulings, and case law — but never as the final word. Every AI output should be reviewed against primary sources by a qualified professional before client use.

    Cassandra Research publishes this general overview. This page does not certify individual authorship or a registered practitioner's review; independently check the sources and consult a qualified practitioner before relying on it.

    Check the applicable income year, legislation, ruling status and subsequent decisions directly with the relevant authority. A page date does not establish that the legal position is current. See /corrections to report an issue.

    This page is general information, not personal tax advice. Always confirm with a TPB-registered tax agent or admitted lawyer before relying on it for client work.

    Every primary source referenced — ITAA sections, ATO ruling numbers, and case names — can be verified on the ATO Legal Database, Federal Register of Legislation, or AustLII.

    Tools for this work

    Explore the relevant Cassandra engines and workflows. Outputs require independent professional review.

    Research Australian tax and law with Cassandra

    Create an account or book a call to explore the research workflow, source checking and review requirements.

    14-day free trial · no credit card