With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". shall be no presumption that the assessor’s valuation is correct.” (Emphasis added.) If a party disagrees with the board of equalization’s decision, the party may appeal to the Commission. Section 138.430.1. At the hearing before the Commission, section 138.431.4 as amended provides that “[t]here shall be no presumption that the assessor’s valuation is correct.” (Emphasis added.) Neither section 138.060.1 nor section 138.431.4 addresses the presumption of correctness attached to valuations by a board of equalization. To date, Missouri courts have generally concluded that the presumption in favor of the assessed value fixed by a board of equalization remains intact. See, e.g., Tibbs v. Poplar Bluff Assocs. I, L.P., 411 S.W.3d 814, 822 (Mo. App. S.D. 2013) (Rahmeyer, J., dissenting) (<HOLDING>); Rinehart, 363 S.W.3d at 367 (“A presumption

A: holding that a taxpayer is required to present  substantial and persuasive evidence that the boards valuation is erroneous
B: holding that the government is not required to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury
C: holding that direct evidence of a fact is not necessary and that circumstantial evidence is not only sufficient but may also be more certain satisfying and persuasive
D: holding the prosecutor is required to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury
A.