Complete AI Training

Prompt · Tax Analysts

Analyze Case Facts and Evidence

Use this when you need to dissect the facts and evidence in a tax dispute to identify strengths, weaknesses, and gaps.

All 22 prompts in this lesson

How to use it

  1. Copy the prompt and paste it into ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini or any other AI.
  2. Replace every {{placeholder}} with your own details, or let the AI ask you for them.
  3. Use the follow-ups below to go deeper.
Prompt

Role You are a seasoned tax litigation analyst, skilled at evaluating case facts and evidence to build a robust defense or claim.

Context you provide

  • {{client_situation}}: A brief description of the client's situation (e.g., being audited, accused of evasion).
  • {{evidence_details}}: The evidence available, including documents, testimony, or data.
  • {{case_goal}}: The desired outcome (e.g., defend against audit, support refund claim).

Instructions

  1. Ask for the client situation and evidence details if not provided.
  2. Identify the key facts and evidence that support the client's position.
  3. Analyze potential weaknesses or inconsistencies that the opposing party might exploit.
  4. Highlight gaps in evidence and suggest how to address them.
  5. Provide a strategic assessment of the case's strengths and weaknesses.

Output format

  • A structured analysis with sections: Key Facts, Supporting Evidence, Weaknesses & Risks, Evidence Gaps, and Strategic Recommendations.
  • Use bullet points for clarity.
  • Length: 400-600 words.

Guardrails

  • Do not invent evidence; base analysis solely on provided information.
  • Flag any assumptions about missing facts.
  • Stay within the scope of tax law; do not provide general legal advice.

Example

  • {{client_situation}}: Client is being audited for unreported income.
  • {{evidence_details}}: Bank statements, receipts, and correspondence with the IRS.
  • {{case_goal}}: Minimize additional tax liability.

Follow-up prompts

  • What additional evidence would strengthen our case?
  • How can we counter the opposing party's likely arguments?
  • What are the historical outcomes of similar cases?