ChatGPT told me that my Required Minimum Distributions (RMDs) wouldn't start until age 75 thanks to the SECURE 2.0 Act, and that I could keep contributing to my Health Savings Account (HSA) after enrolling in Medicare since I was still working part-time. It said this with total confidence - 'You're all set, your RMDs start at 75 and your HSA is fine.'
1 Answer
Unfortunately, ChatGPT got both of these wrong — and these are costly mistakes that could affect your retirement finances significantly. **On RMDs:** The SECURE 2.0 Act did raise the RMD age, but only to 73 (for those turning 72 after 2022). If you're 73 now, your RMDs already started. ChatGPT was using outdated information — what's called 'training lag.' The model may have been trained on material before the final SECURE 2.0 provisions were enacted. **On HSAs:** This is a clearer-cut rule. Once you enroll in Medicare Part A or B, you cannot make new HSA contributions — regardless of whether you're still working. ChatGPT completely missed this. Even a single month of Medicare coverage makes you ineligible for HSA contributions for the entire year. I've seen many cases where ChatGPT gives 'possibly correct but also incomplete' advice on tax matters. As I told CNBC: it sounds convincing, but it misses critical nuances like form discrepancies and tax code interactions. The training lag is a real issue — AI may be using last year's (or older) tax rules. **Bottom line:** For retirees, always verify AI tax advice with a qualified CPA or tax professional. AI cannot account for your individual financial situation, and the confidence in wrong answers makes it particularly dangerous for irreversible financial decisions.
Your answer
Sign in to verify this AI response.
Don't trust us — or the AI. Ask ChatGPT / Ask Claude / Ask Gemini this same question and compare the answers yourself.
More from this topic
Across 121 money questions covering debt, mortgages, pensions and tax - each run five times, more than 10,000 responses in total - the models gave answers that were wrong or incomplete 57% of the time, and presented them as settled guidance. On the hardest multi-step questions the failure rate reached 88%. Gemini 3.5 Flash and Claude Haiku 4.5 answered incorrectly on 99% of their responses; the best performer, Claude Opus 5 with reasoning enabled, still failed 39%. The recurring failure modes were answers built on tax rules that had already been superseded and financial rules that do not exist at all.
Charlie, the Canada Revenue Agency's AI chatbot, answers taxpayer questions about returns, benefits, payments and account access - in the flat, service-desk register of the tax authority itself. Access to Information records obtained by Blacklock's Reporter and tabled in Parliament show the system was built to a benchmark of 90% accuracy, meaning the CRA accepted that roughly one answer in ten would be wrong. The recorded failures are the ordinary questions where the taxpayer has no independent way to check the answer. Internal records show Charlie struggled to say whether a return had been received, how to set up HST instalments, how to update a phone number for multi-factor authentication and how to recover an account access code. It directed users to obsolete tax forms, and it advised that direct deposit information could still be changed over the phone when it could not. Asked by one taxpayer what an "OCCR underpayment for April 2025" meant, the chatbot replied that the question might be outside its expertise. A review dated Oct. 29 found that only 36.4% of users who provided feedback were satisfied, while 63.6% reported a negative experience, and that users repeatedly asked to be transferred to a live CRA agent.
A general-purpose AI chatbot recommended a Monaco-friendly tax strategy to a UK employee based in Croydon - advice that was useless for him, because the model ignored UK tapering allowances and the contributions he had already made. It is the worked example the Financial Times reported alongside the FCA's Mills Review (published 6 July 2026), which examines consumers 'routinely turning to general-purpose AI tools for everyday budgeting, saving and investment tips'. The review asks whether AI systems could deliver services 'functionally equivalent to regulated activities while remaining outside the regulatory perimeter' - including agentic AI that compares products, rebalances portfolios or executes trades. Consumer trust is running ahead of performance: a Lloyds study found 28 million UK adults used AI for personal-finance questions in 2025, and Fidelity data cited by the FT showed 36 percent of 18-to-34s turning to it for investment ideas.