I don’t think I agree with the premises. The main one being that “tax fraud” is a binary thing and separately that that one can negotiate about it—deniability is part and parcel of the idea. The secondary one is that binding agreements by the AI are different from binding agreements from the human—you need to specify somehow that the AI is simple enough that magical constraints are possible (in which case, you can simplify the scenario by the government demand that the taxpayer rewire their brain to not cheat), or that the agreement is exactly as binding as on a human—it has penalties if caught, but isn’t actually prevented.
I don’t think I agree with the premises. The main one being that “tax fraud” is a binary thing and separately that that one can negotiate about it—deniability is part and parcel of the idea. The secondary one is that binding agreements by the AI are different from binding agreements from the human—you need to specify somehow that the AI is simple enough that magical constraints are possible (in which case, you can simplify the scenario by the government demand that the taxpayer rewire their brain to not cheat), or that the agreement is exactly as binding as on a human—it has penalties if caught, but isn’t actually prevented.