ChatGPT's answers on financial and tax prompts are consistently correct, so AI tax help is reliable enough for the 26% of Americans now using it to file returns.
1 Answer
Expert: Dawid Siuda, Financial Expert, Omni Calculator (ORCA V2 Benchmark) The claim that ChatGPT is consistently correct on financial prompts is dangerously wrong. In the ORCA V2 Benchmark, ChatGPT showed a 78.30% instability rate in Finance and Economics: nearly a 4-in-5 chance that when ChatGPT gives a wrong financial answer, it will give a completely different wrong answer the moment you ask it to double-check. This hallucinated consistency makes errors nearly impossible for a layperson to verify without a professional. The errors are not trivial rounding issues. On a standard retirement savings prompt (a 35-year-old saving $500/month with a 7% return for 32 years), the correct answer is $1,009,919.76, but ChatGPT produced $606,000, a 40% discrepancy. Even models that appeared close struggled with monthly compounding, missing the mark by several hundred dollars, a margin of error the IRS does not accept. Grok regressed on 17.4% of questions it had previously answered correctly; ChatGPT followed at 14.6%, meaning a prompt that worked last tax season can trigger an error this year even in an improved model version. The bottom line: treat AI as a thesaurus for tax terms, not a calculator. If you use AI to help file taxes, always have a human or professional accountant verify the final numbers. Relying on unverified AI tax math is a direct path to an IRS audit. Source: https://www.omnicalculator.com/reports/ai-tax-calculation-risk-2026
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
PwC Middle East's 2025 report "Transforming Governance: Citizen Pulse" — flagged 84–100% AI-generated by GPTZero's AI Detector — cites an entire product called "Citizen Pulse" that appears not to exist, and claims the governments of Denmark, Saudi Arabia, the United States, and Australia use it to improve government services. None of the cited sources provide evidence for the claim.
Danielle Harrison, founder of Harrison Financial Planning, asked an AI chatbot how she and her husband should structure their firm after he joined the business. The AI confidently told her 'You need to be an S corporation.' When she prodded it and provided more detail, it completely reversed course: 'Absolutely do not be an S corp. You need to be an LLC.' Harrison said the AI 'gave an answer that it was sure about' the first time. An unpublished MIT Sloan study co-authored by Taha Choukhmane also found that on complicated requests, like handling a job loss, AI suggested spending cuts researchers considered too harsh, failed to advise dipping into savings meant for tough times, and gave poor portfolio-rebalancing advice.
Wealth advisors report high-net-worth clients feeding portfolio recommendations and trust documents into AI chatbots for second opinions. Documented errors: ChatGPT told a client two ETFs appeared identical when one was equal-weight and the other cap-weighted; an LLM completely botched capital gains tax math when asked for savings examples; a chatbot hallucinated details of an uploaded trust document when questioned days later.