<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
  <channel>
    <title>TaxGPT.ai — Question of the Week</title>
    <link>https://taxgpt.ai/qotw/</link>
    <atom:link href="https://taxgpt.ai/qotw/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <description>A weekly series where TaxGPT.ai asks four AI models the same real tax question, compares their answers against authoritative IRS sources, and invites tax professionals to evaluate which got it right.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 May 2026 12:00:00 -0500</lastBuildDate>
    <managingEditor>hello@taxgpt.ai (TaxGPT.ai)</managingEditor>
    <generator>TaxGPT.ai QotW Generator v2</generator>
    <ttl>1440</ttl>

    <item>
      <title>QotW No. 1: When the corpus runs out: how AI models handle a §414(m) gap</title>
      <link>https://taxgpt.ai/qotw/issue-1-asg-physician-partnership/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://taxgpt.ai/qotw/issue-1-asg-physician-partnership/</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2026 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
      <description><![CDATA[A real TaxGPT.ai user asked about affiliated service group rules for a doctor-owned surgical partnership. The retrieved IRS sources didn’t include §414(m) directly. Two models filled the gap from training data; one stayed in its lane. Which approach is correct?]]></description>
      <category>§414(m)</category>
      <category>Affiliated Service Groups</category>
      <category>Retirement Plans</category>
      <category>Citation Honesty</category>
    </item>

  </channel>
</rss>
