Burden of Proof Rules, Findings and Explanations

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 49-84
Author(s):  
Borhanian Shahin
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Proof Rules

Tax Decision Making under the New Burden of Proof Rules

2004 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 23-42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne M. Magro ◽  
Beth Stetson
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Internal Revenue Service ◽  
Popular Press ◽  
Tax System ◽  
Internal Revenue ◽  
Playing Field ◽  
Proof Rules ◽  
Tax Professionals

In the late 1990s, controversy over alleged Internal Revenue Service abuses and concern about the extent of the agency's power over taxpayers led to the passage of new rules governing relations between the IRS and taxpayers. An important element of this new set of rules was I.R.C. § 7491, which purported to shift the burden of proof in civil tax cases from the taxpayer to the IRS. Commentators generally agreed that the shift would have little effect on the outcome of cases, but the popular press touted the new provision as an important step to level the playing field between the parties. We conduct an experiment in which we manipulate the applicability of I.R.C. § 7491 and measure role in the tax system (taxpayer versus tax professional). As predicted, we find that taxpayers assess a higher likelihood of success in litigation when the anticipated burden of proof rests with the IRS than when the anticipated burden of proof rests with the taxpayer. Taxpayers who believe that the IRS bears the burden of proof also assess a higher likelihood of success than do tax professionals, regardless of the applicability of I.R.C. § 7491. This increased perceived likelihood of success in litigation translates to an increased willingness on the part of taxpayers to engage in an unsound tax-motivated transaction.

The CSI Effect

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason Chin
Keyword(s):  
Forensic Science ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
High Standard ◽  
Juror Decision Making ◽  
Scholarly Work ◽  
Television Programs ◽  
Forensic Evidence ◽  
Csi Effect ◽  
Real Phenomenon ◽  
Scene Investigation

The CSI Effect posits that exposure to television programs that portray forensic science (e.g., CSI: Crime Scene Investigation) can change the way jurors evaluate forensic evidence. The most commonly researched hypothesis under the CSI Effect suggests that shows like CSI depict an unrealistically high standard of forensic science and thus unreasonably inflate the expectations of jurors. Jurors are thus more likely to vote to acquit, and prosecutors face higher burden of proof. We review (1) the theory behind the CSI Effect, (2) the perception of the effect among legal actors, (3) the academic treatment of the effect, and (4) how courts have dealt with the effect. We demonstrate that while legal actors do see the CSI Effect as a serious issue, there is virtually no empirical evidence suggesting it is a real phenomenon. Moreover, many of the remedies employed by courts may do no more than introduce bias into juror decision making or even trigger the CSI Effect when it would not normally occur (i.e., the self-fulfilling prophesy). We end with suggestions for the proper treatment of the CSI Effect in courts, and directions for future scholarly work.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document