the fact-finder resolves matters of weight and credibility among the competing items of evidence.” In re First Magnus Fin. Corp., 415 B.R. at 423 (citing Maximum Med. Imp., Inc. v. Cnty. of Dallas, 272 S.W.3d 832, 835-36 (Tex.App.2008)). However, as explained further below, the Tax Claimants bear the burden to demonstrate why a late-filing is appropriate. See In re PT-1 Commc’ns, Inc., 403 B.R. 250, 260 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.2009) (“PT-1 ”) (concluding that late filer bears burden of demonstrating excusable neglect). Were they prepetition claimants, they would also bear the burden of determining whether their claim is scheduled as disputed or contingent in determining whether it is necessary to comply with a bar date order. In re Nutri*Bevco, Inc., 117 B.R. 771, 781 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1990) (<HOLDING>). Thus, the Court finds that the Tax Claimants
holding that the burden of proof is on the claimant recognizing discretion of district court in determining a fee award holding that the operative fact is whether or not the creditor has notice of the debtors bankruptcy proceeding in time to file a timely proof of claim recognizing that creditor has burden of determining the accuracy of scheduling claims in determining whether filing proof of claim is necessary recognizing that the burden of proof is an essential element of the claim itself and that one who asserts a claim has the burden of proof that normally comes with it