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
holding the prosecutor is required to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury 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 holding that a taxpayer is required to present  substantial and persuasive evidence that the boards valuation is erroneous holding that the government is not required to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury holding that the fact that the merit systems protection boards decision differs from the presiding officials does not alter the requirement that we evaluate the boards final decision under the substantial evidence standard