This study introduces a hybrid neuro-symbolic framework that achieves deterministic detection of statutory inconsistency in complex law. We use the U.S. Internal Revenue Code (IRC) as a case study because its complexity makes it a fertile domain for identifying conflicts. Our research offers a solution for detecting inconsistent provisions by combining Large Language Models (LLMs) with symbolic logic. LLM-based methods can support compliance, fairness, and statutory drafting, yet tax-specific applications remain sparse. A key challenge is that such models struggle with hierarchical processing and deep structured reasoning, especially over long text. This research addresses these gaps through experiments using GPT-4o, GPT-5, and Prolog. GPT-4o was first used to translate Section 121 into Prolog rules and refine them in SWISH. These rules were then incorporated into prompts to test whether Prolog-augmented prompting improved GPT-4o's inconsistency detection. GPT-4o, whether prompted with natural language alone or with Prolog augmentation, detected the inconsistency in only one of three strategies (33 percent accuracy), but its reasoning quality differed: natural-language prompting achieved 100 percent rule coverage, while Prolog-augmented prompting achieved 66 percent, indicating more incomplete statutory analysis. In contrast to probabilistic prompting, the hybrid Prolog model produced deterministic and reproducible results. Guided by GPT-5 for refinement, the model formalized the IRC section's competing interpretations and successfully detected an inconsistency zone. Validation tests confirm that the Prolog implementation is accurate, internally consistent, deterministic, and capable of autonomously identifying inconsistencies. These findings show that LLM-assisted formalization, anchored in symbolic logic, enables transparent and reliable statutory inconsistency detection.