When proof is introduced of the basic facts which give rise to a presumption which affects the burden of proof, the
presumption shifts to the adverse party the burden of persuasion to disprove the presumed fact.
The Board approved of the test used in Doyle because while the employee must only show that his or her protected activity was a factor in his or her dismissal to shift the burden of proof, the
formal framework allows employers to establish their motivations.
The court held, inter alia, that in order for a plaintiff to meet the burden of proof required to proceed in a medical malpractice case, he must present evidence establishing the applicable standard of care, breach of the standard of care, and causal connection for a plaintiff to meet his burden of proof, the
"opinion of expert witnesses who are members of the medical profession and who are qualified to testify on the subject are necessary to determine whether or not physicians possessed the requisite degree of knowledge or skill, or failed to exercise reasonable care and diligence." The plaintiff failed to offer any evidence to substantiate her claim of malpractice.
By using the percentages provided in the CA to determine the gift, the Tax Court, according to the Fifth Circuit, "in essence suspended the valuation date of the property that the Taxpayers donated in January until the date in March on which the disparate donees acted" According to the Fifth Circuit, this "violated the immutable maxim that post-gift occurrences do not affect, and may not be considered in, the appraisal and valuation process." Because the Tax Court majority's legal method was flawed, and the Service failed to meet its burden of proof, the
Fifth Circuit accepted the taxpayers' valuations.
Specifically, the Court explained that in order for a plaintiff to carry the required burden of proof, the
plaintiff must demonstrate that the legitimate nondiscriminatory reason offered by the employer to explain the employment action is false and the true reason was motivated by unlawful discrimination.
Based on the foregoing analysis of Indopco's long-term benefit approach, the Court's emphasis on the taxpayer's burden of proof, the
requirement of a nexus between an expenditure and a capital transaction before capitalization is required, and the possibilities for allocation of lump-sum expenditures, there are several strategies that the taxpayer may wish to consider: