This shows how little experience you have of the legal system. Everyone who doesn't know expects the law to be precise, everyone who works in it knows how imprecise it is and sometimes that is deliberate because of all the variables involved that might mitigate or aggrevate the charge, assuming there even is a charge.

The difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance might be the smallest proveable piece of evidence. A word, an email, an assumption, an ommission etc.

Sure, but citing a non-existent case would be clearly wrong. That was the hypothetical the post above gave.

> The difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance might be the smallest proveable piece of evidence. A word, an email, an assumption, an ommission etc.

This seems like evidence that I'm right, not that I'm wrong. The tiniest facts matter, and an AI that is prone to making up facts wholesale would totally screw up a case.