Answer a client's tax question with Claude and cited provisions

A client's tax question deserves an answer they can act on and defend. Claude is useful here because it reads long provisions and guidance in full and writes clearly, but its memory of tax law is the weak point: repealed articles and invented ruling numbers appear with complete confidence. The method is to supply the provisions yourself and require a reference for every conclusion. Plan on about 30 minutes.

Restate the question with facts

Clients ask questions in their own words, often mixing two issues. Rewrite the question yourself, with the facts that decide the answer: type of business, tax regime, the transaction with dates and amounts. Leave out the client name and tax ID; a description of the situation is enough. If the facts are incomplete, list the gaps now. An answer built on assumed facts needs caveats, and the prompt asks for them.

Load the sources

In a Claude Project (or NotebookLM, if you only need retrieval with citations), upload the current tax code sections that apply and the tax authority's published guidance on the topic. Take them from official sources, and note the date of each version. The transaction date matters: a provision amended last month may not apply to a transaction from last year.

The prompt

Role: you are a tax consultant in {{country}} experienced with {{tax regime}}. Context: the client's business is {{type of business}}. Situation: {{description of the transaction with dates and amounts, no names}}. Provisions I am adding: {{list of tax code sections and guidance}}. Task: answer the question "{{client's question}}". For each conclusion, name the section and article of the tax code. Separately list the facts the conclusion depends on and how the answer changes if they are different. If a provision is ambiguous, say so and describe both interpretations. Format: a short answer in two sentences, then the reasoning with references, then the caveats and a list of documents the client should keep. No long dashes.

The instruction on ambiguity is worth keeping. Tax provisions often allow two readings, and a client who knows there is a second interpretation can decide how much risk to take.

Verify before sending

Open every provision Claude cites in the official source and read it. Confirm three things: the article says what the answer claims, the version was in force on the transaction date, and the reference is to your jurisdiction's code rather than something similar from elsewhere. Then read the caveats. Good caveats are specific: "if the services were consumed abroad, the place of supply changes and so does the answer". Generic caveats ("consult a professional") add nothing, since you are the professional.

What to do

1. Restate the client's question with the facts: business type, tax regime, amounts and dates, no names.
2. Upload the current tax code provisions and official guidance to a Claude Project.
3. Run the prompt requiring a section and article for every conclusion.
4. Open every cited provision and check the version in force on the transaction date.
5. Add caveats on which facts the conclusion depends on and what would change it.
6. Send the client the answer with the list of documents to keep for an audit.

When the answer is ready

Every conclusion references a current provision you opened and read, the client understands what to do and which documents to keep, and the caveats name the facts the answer depends on.

Plans

A session with a tax code chapter in context is heavy, and Claude's quota depends on conversation size, so open a new chat for each question. Pro at 20 USD per month (17 with annual billing) gives five times the free plan's messages and Projects; Team at 25 USD per seat with annual billing keeps team data out of training by default. See Claude pricing. The tax consultant's version is on the client tax question page, and Claude vs NotebookLM explains when strict citation matters more than reasoning.