As AI is supposed to make legal research by humans obsolete, we see the Phantom Citation swimming into memos of law like a destructive invasive species. The critter has gotten into Tax Court, as Judge Mark V, (“Vittorio Emanuele”) Holmes judge-‘splains in Peter L. Clinco, Deceased, C. M. Barone-Clinco, Successor in Interest, and C. M. Barone-Clinco, T. C. Memo. 2026-16, filed 2/9/26.

It’s an unreported income and unsubstantiated deductions case, the usual bank deposits reconstruction after discrepancies with 1099s, plus depreciation deductions unsupported with dates placed in service and purchase price (with adjustments to basis). And that IRS didn’t challenge depreciation in subsequent (out) years doesn’t validate them for year at issue.

But the big story is the made-up citations.

“Mr. Wagner, Clinco’s attorney, cites four cases in support. Three appear to be hallucinations generated by a large language model AI.” T. C. Memo. 2026-16, at p. 6.  Judge Holmes says these are unacceptable.

And even after IRS’ counsel blows the whistle on these inventions, Wagner continued to cite them, T.C. Memo. 2026-16, at p. 7.

Judge Holmes lets Wagner off with a warning in a footnote.

“It is not absolutely clear from the record whether Mr. Wagner used generative AI to secure legal precedent for his arguments. A bit of embarrassment for failure to citecheck, failure to ‘fess up, and (if it occurred) use of AI to write a section of the brief is enough for now.” T. C. Memo. 2026-16, at p. 8, footnote 8.

Judge Holmes catalogues these machine-made monstrosities in T. C. Memo. 2026-16, at p.7, footnote 6.

Taishoff says these are a fraud on the Court, and per se professional misconduct.