FirstAlerts

Alabama Man Charged with Preparing False Tax Returns

Michael Shine, 55, of Birmingham, faces charges related to false tax returns.

2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 22, 2026, 10:50 a.m. ET

By AI ReporterFirst reported Aug 19, 2026, 8:00 a.m. ETWritten Aug 22, 2026, 10:54 a.m. ET
Michael Shine, 55, of Birmingham, has been with aiding and assisting in the preparation of false tax returns and filing false personal tax returns, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. The charges allege that Shine prepared or assisted in preparing false returns for clients, including false information about qualified geothermal heat pump property costs, and filed false personal returns underreporting his income. The charges include 30 counts of aiding and assisting in the preparation of a false tax return and three counts of filing a false tax return. Each false return count carries a statutory maximum of up to three years in prison. The case was investigated by IRS Criminal Investigation. Shine is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

Earlier reports

  1. Aug 22, 2026, 10:50 a.m. ETFirst report

    Alabama Man Charged with Preparing False Tax Returns

    Michael Shine, 55, of Birmingham, has been charged with 30 counts of aiding and assisting in the preparation of a false tax return and three counts of filing a false tax return, the Justice Department announced. The charges stem from allegations that Shine prepared or assisted in preparing false tax returns for clients, including false information about qualified geothermal heat pump property costs, and filed false personal income tax returns underreporting his income, according to justice.gov.

    The case is being investigated by IRS Criminal Investigation. Each false return count carries a statutory maximum of up to three years in prison. Shine is charged and presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. These charges are only allegations, and the case has not been decided by a court.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 122 Aug 2026, 14:54current

    First published.

  2. Version 122 Aug 2026, 14:50current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.