COTA stated this finding was in accord with “the long-held principle that public officials are presumed to discharge their duties fairly, reasonably, and impartially” and that a person wanting to challenge the validity of the government's actions had the burden to prove such invalidity. See generally Dauffenbach v. City of Wichita, 233 Kan. 1028, 1033, 667 P.2d 380 (1983) (“general presumption that a public official will act fairly, reasonably and impartially”); In re Tax Appeal of National Catastrophe Restoration, Inc., 48 Kan.App.2d 189, 196, 291 P.3d 89 (2012) (“ ‘[A] presumption of validity attaches to the Department's audit assessment, and it is [the][taxpayer's burden to rebut that presumption.” ’).
Gene, as the petitioner, has the burden of persuasion to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Florida was his domicile for the tax years 2005 and 2006. See In re Tax Appeal of National Catastrophe Restoration, Inc. , 48 Kan. App. 2d 189, 196-97, 291 P.3d 89 (2012). The burden of persuasion is the ultimate burden assigned to a party who must prove something to a particularized degree of certainty.
COTA's inability to review a constitutional issue does not relieve a party of the obligation to raise the issue and make a record establishing the necessary factual predicates for the reviewing court to properly apply constitutional principles. In re Tax Appeal of National Catastrophe Restoration, Inc., 48 Kan.App.2d 189, 205–06, 291 P.3d 89 (2012). In Most Worshipful Grand Lodge, the Intervenors presented evidence in the form of affidavits and newspaper articles which our Supreme Court deemed insufficient.