Implied in your statement - it benefits those who can create more complex financial situations. Often the complexity of the situation is largely synthetic.

▲

munk-a 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I agree that the complex financials are generally intentionally created for sheltering and that complexity is only possible because of our overly complex tax code which has been made significantly more complex by tax preparer lobbyists from Intuit and others.

▲

netsharc 3 hours ago | parent [-]

The reflex when people hear "complex" in this era: "Can we use AI for it?".

Next month's headline: "IRS signs 200-million dollar deal with Grok to use AI to analyse tax returns, determine who gets audited".

	▲	akdev1l 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		You’re thinking too far behind. They can just use the AI to generate what your taxes would’ve been. Just have a script with “what are the taxes owed by $name” and print the output I’ll take $5M now and you can own 50% of my startup: GenTaxAI
	▲	oarla 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		I suspect something like this may already be in place.
	▲	cranberryturkey 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Half-joking but this is genuinely the trajectory. The problem is that tax analysis requires understanding intent behind complex structures — is this a legitimate trust or a shell game? That's adversarial reasoning, not pattern matching. The real risk isn't that AI can't find anomalies — it's great at that. The risk is that the people creating complex avoidance structures will use AI too, and they'll iterate faster than a government system updated on procurement cycles. You end up with AI vs AI where one side has a 3-year upgrade timeline and the other ships weekly.

▲

yibg 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

In both cases though, mostly rich people.