allocation of the burden of persuasion on this issue”). If the bankruptcy court applies the correct legal principles, however, the court will afford the bankruptcy court discretion in drawing its ultimate conclusion: [a] bankruptcy court may properly exercise discretion when determining, on findings of particular basic and inferred facts, whether a debtor has successfully demonstrated that its failure to keep adequate records was ultimately “justified.” Assuming a bankruptcy court correctly applied proper legal precepts when making its 727(a)(3) determination, and that the court’s basic and inferred factual findings were not clearly erroneous, the bankruptcy court’s ultimate determination should be affirmed absent an abuse of discretion. Id. at 1230 n. 2; cf. Zervos, 252 F.3d at 169 (<HOLDING>). “It has long been law that the privilege of
holding that the bankruptcy court abuses or exceeds its discretion when 1 its decision rests on an error of law such as application of the wrong legal principle or a clearly erroneous factual finding or 2 its decision  though not necessarily the product of a legal error or a clearly erroneous factual finding  cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions holding bankruptcy courts finding of proximate causation not to be clearly erroneous holding that the finding of intent to discriminate is a factual determination subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review holding that we review the bankruptcy court decision independently accepting its factual findings unless clearly erroneous but reviewing its conclusions of law de novo holding that the district courts finding of no discrimination was not clearly erroneous because the finding was supported by the record