OOF-AII-033499
Israeli Tax Authority Reportedly Used an Opaque Automated System to Issue a Fine, Declining to Explain or Disclose the Underlying Calculation
An Israeli farmer, Moshe Har Shemesh, reportedly received a fine generated by a Tax Authority software system whose calculation officials were allegedly unable to explain. When the farmer reportedly sought access to the program or its source code to understand the basis for the amount, the authority allegedly refused, citing security concerns and the difficulty of extracting the embedded guidelines. The dispute reportedly later moved into legal proceedings focused on whether code and automated decision rules constitute information subject to public disclosure.
- Event date
- 2021-01-11
- Country
- Israel
- Severity
- Low
- Evidence state
- Single-source
Assessment status
Generated from available public incident evidence using OOF® governance methodology. It is not an official investigation, legal determination, regulatory finding, certification, or OOF® Approved Assessment.
View source record from AI Incident Database (Responsible AI Collaborative)
Assessment confidence dimensions
- Source corroboration
- Single-source
- Extraction completeness
- High
- Methodological assignment confidence
- Limited
Measures source-group corroboration only; it does not establish factual truth.
Measures populated source fields after deterministic normalization; it does not measure correctness.
Measures automated assignment support; substantive correctness requires authorized human review.
Known facts from the incident record
- The incident record identifies the event date as 2021-01-11.
- The incident record identifies the location as Israel.
Reported claims
- An Israeli farmer, Moshe Har Shemesh, reportedly received a fine generated by a Tax Authority software system whose calculation officials were allegedly unable to explain. When the farmer reportedly sought access to the program or its source code to understand the basis for the amount, the authority allegedly refused, citing security concerns and the difficulty of extracting the embedded guidelines. The dispute reportedly later moved into legal proceedings focused on whether code and automated decision rules constitute information subject to public disclosure.
Material unknowns
- Independent corroboration is not established in the available incident record.
Primary governance problem
The incident appears to expose a governance problem involving authority, decision. Available reporting supports preliminary methodological interpretation, not a finding of fault or non-compliance.
Architecture intelligence
CLIA® — Cognitive Governance Intelligence Architecture
Primary architecture
The reported authority, decision concern falls within the governed questions represented by CLIA® — Cognitive Governance Intelligence Architecture.
Governance focus: How should authority, decision be governed in the conditions described by the available incident evidence?
Deeper methodology is withheld because the available evidence does not justify a Parent Standard or Core Module.
OBIDENITY® — Origin-Bound Identity Governance Architecture
Contributing architecture
The reported authority, source, access concern falls within the governed questions represented by OBIDENITY® — Origin-Bound Identity Governance Architecture.
Governance focus: How should authority, source, access be governed in the conditions described by the available incident evidence?
Deeper methodology is withheld because the available evidence does not justify a Parent Standard or Core Module.
AGA™ — Accountability Governance Architecture
Contributing architecture
The reported authority, decision concern falls within the governed questions represented by AGA™ — Accountability Governance Architecture.
Governance focus: How should authority, decision be governed in the conditions described by the available incident evidence?
Deeper methodology is withheld because the available evidence does not justify a Parent Standard or Core Module.
MGIA™ — Memory Governance Intelligence Architecture
Contributing architecture
The reported authority, access concern falls within the governed questions represented by MGIA™ — Memory Governance Intelligence Architecture.
Governance focus: How should authority, access be governed in the conditions described by the available incident evidence?
Deeper methodology is withheld because the available evidence does not justify a Parent Standard or Core Module.
GOA™ - Governance Architecture
Contributing architecture
The reported authority, disclosure concern falls within the governed questions represented by GOA™ - Governance Architecture.
Governance focus: How should authority, disclosure be governed in the conditions described by the available incident evidence?
Deeper methodology is withheld because the available evidence does not justify a Parent Standard or Core Module.
ASGA™ — Autonomous Systems Governance Architecture
Contributing architecture
The reported authority concern falls within the governed questions represented by ASGA™ — Autonomous Systems Governance Architecture.
Governance focus: How should authority be governed in the conditions described by the available incident evidence?
Deeper methodology is withheld because the available evidence does not justify a Parent Standard or Core Module.
ORA™ - Operational Reality Architecture
Contributing architecture
The reported authority, decision concern falls within the governed questions represented by ORA™ - Operational Reality Architecture.
Governance focus: How should authority, decision be governed in the conditions described by the available incident evidence?
Deeper methodology is withheld because the available evidence does not justify a Parent Standard or Core Module.
Preliminary governance questions
- How should authority, decision be governed in the conditions described by the available incident evidence?
- How should authority, source, access be governed in the conditions described by the available incident evidence?
- How should authority, access be governed in the conditions described by the available incident evidence?
- How should authority, disclosure be governed in the conditions described by the available incident evidence?
- How should authority be governed in the conditions described by the available incident evidence?
Evidence gaps and limitations
- Only one independent source group is represented; corroboration is not established.
- AI technology is not specified in the source record.
- AI system type is not specified in the source record.