I responded to your subsequent thread about soil before seeing this older one, so I will copy over my advice so it is here.
Personally I would not do this due to the significant risks (to fish) plus the fact that it really has minimal benefit for plants. I have had planted tanks for 25-30 years, and researched the various methods and even tried a few. Soil is one I have never even considered after researching it.
Soil contains organics, and this is the benefit. Organics decompose producing CO2 (the initial high level of CO2 is the only benefit for plants, I'll come back to this) and ammonia. The level of ammonia can be sufficient to kill the fish in the tank. Most soil substrate authorities advise six months before fish are added, and using a dry start to begin with; I won't get into the complications of this, but you can research it.
Obviously the ammonia is the main risk. As for CO2, it is true that more will initially be produced from soil than from an inert substrate like sand or fine gravel, but within a few months the latter will be just as beneficial. Organics naturally build up in the substrate whatever it is composed of, and this is the main source of natural CO2. Diana Walstad, who is the prime advocate of this method (soil) admits in her articles and book that any inert substrate like sand will be equal to soil (with respect to nutrient benefit) by the end of the first year, and the soil would then (or should then) be replaced, starting all over again. This is not required with non-soil substrates. The initial CO2 is the only "benefit," as any mineral nutrient in the soil will be minimal and used within a few months if not sooner.
If you are intending an "aquatic garden" planted tank wiithout fish, then soil has no real detriment. But if you intend a fish tank that happens to have livee plants, it is the most risky method.