Tax experts caution South Africans about using ChatGPT to do their taxes

Tax experts warned that while AI tools like ChatGPT can help explain tax concepts, taxpayers remain legally responsible for ensuring their SARS returns are accurate and supported by evidence.

On 13 July, South Africa’s 2026 filing season officially opened to non-provisional and provisional taxpayers. However, this year’s tax season is seeing an increasing risk.

According to Latita Africa Tax Advisory CEO Jemaine Manikus, tax advisers are hearing a phrase that should concern both taxpayers and professional firms: “ChatGPT said…”

Artificial intelligence is increasingly used to interpret tax rules, assess potential deductions, and guide filing decisions.

The question is no longer whether AI should be used. It is whether the answer can be verified and defended when SARS asks for evidence.

Manikus, CEO of Latita Africa, explained that more taxpayers are arriving at consultations with conclusions drawn from public AI tools.

“They are not always asking what the correct tax position is,” he said. “They are asking the adviser to confirm an answer they have already accepted.”

That creates a filing-season risk because an answer can sound authoritative without being based on the taxpayer’s full circumstances.

Public AI tools can explain tax concepts and help taxpayers prepare questions for an adviser. They cannot assess information that was never entered into the prompt.

A generated answer may overlook undeclared income, unsupported deductions, earlier tax treatments or information already held by SARS.

Manikus warned that it may also apply a general rule without recognising an exception that changes the outcome. The risk is particularly relevant as SARS pre-fills more information into returns, including certain investment income.

Prefilled information may reduce manual capturing, but taxpayers must still check that their returns are complete and correct. The taxpayer remains responsible for the return submitted.

An answer from ChatGPT cannot replace a review of the records, the applicable law and the taxpayer’s history with SARS.

South African courts send a warning to taxpayers and professional firms

Manikus said the use of AI by a professional firm is not itself a cause for concern. The risk depends on what the system is permitted to do and on whether a qualified person thoroughly reviews the result.

There is a clear difference between asking a public chatbot to provide a final tax position and using a controlled system to gather information, identify missing documents and present data for professional assessment.

Several firms in South Africa have already developed their own AI tax agents to support this process and make the filing process smoother.

At Latita Africa, for example, the agent collects and structures client information, identifies records required for return preparation and presents the material to tax consultants for review.

However, Manikus stressed that the agent does not determine the final tax treatment or submit a return without professional oversight.

“The purpose is not to hand professional judgment to a machine. It is to get the relevant information to the consultant sooner while keeping responsibility with the professional who approves the work.”

For both taxpayers and professional firms, he said, the consequences of accepting generated information without verification are no longer theoretical.

In Mavundla v MEC for Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs, the KwaZulu-Natal High Court dealt with legal submissions containing authorities that did not exist.

Manikus noted that this judgment was subsequently referred to the Legal Practice Council for possible further action.

In Northbound Processing v Rappa Resources, the Gauteng High Court found that four cases cited in the written argument were fictitious and had been produced through generative AI.

The court reaffirmed the principle that legal practitioners remain responsible for verifying the material placed before a court.

These judgments concern legal practice, but the warning applies directly to tax work. Technology does not excuse an unsupported conclusion or transfer responsibility away from the person relying on it.

Manikus added that when SARS questions a return, it will ask for the documents, calculations and legal basis supporting the position taken.

In the end, it will not matter to SARS whether the answer came from a public chatbot, tax software or an internal AI system.

AI can reduce administrative work and make technical information easier to understand. It cannot assume the financial and legal consequences when an answer is wrong.

Manikus cautioned that those consequences remain with the taxpayer and the professional who approved the position.

The greatest risk this filing season may therefore be an answer that sounds convincing, is accepted without proper review and falls apart when SARS asks for proof.