Michigan Man Pleads Guilty in $7M Tax Fraud Scheme
Rodney Underwood of Detroit admitted to filing false claims in connection with a scheme that fraudulently claimed more than $7 million in refunds.
2 reports on this incident · first at Sep 2, 2026, 2:09 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Sep 2, 2026, 2:09 p.m. ETFirst report
Michigan Man Pleads Guilty in $7M Tax Fraud Scheme
A Michigan man pleaded guilty on September 2, 2026, to making a false claim in connection with a scheme to defraud the IRS, according to the Justice Department. Rodney Underwood, of Detroit, prepared and filed more than 200 nearly identical false tax returns for clients, leaving the paid preparer section blank to make them appear self-prepared. The returns reported false dividend income and withholding amounts to generate refunds the clients were not entitled to receive, and Underwood did not report the fees he received as income on his own returns.
The false returns fraudulently claimed more than $7 million in refunds and caused an actual loss to the government of approximately $6.2 million, the Justice Department said. Underwood pleaded guilty to making a false claim and faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison. Sentencing is scheduled for January 6, 2027. The case is being investigated by IRS Criminal Investigation and prosecuted by Trial Attorneys Shawn Noud and Alexis Hughes of the National Fraud Enforcement Division’s Tax Section.
Assistant Attorney General Colin M. McDonald of the Justice Department’s National Fraud Enforcement Division said, “Filing false returns isn’t a shortcut — it’s pure theft. Fraudulent refunds steal millions from Americans who play by the rules, and we will pursue those who willfully cheat the tax system without fear or favor.”
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 18 Sept 2026, 16:52current
First published.
- Version 12 Sept 2026, 18:09current
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.