Cluster 201602

Court, 408 F.3d 26 1142, 1148-49 (9th Cir. 2005).

Among the 24 rights inmates retain upon incarceration is their First Amendment right to file prison grievances. 25 See Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 26 559, 566 (9th Cir. 2005).

Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 26 559, 568 (9th Cir. 2005). 27 2 The adverse action need not be an independent constitutional violation.

Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 26 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005); see also Hines v. Gomez, 108 F.3d 265, 267 (9th Cir. 1997) 27 (retaliation claims require an inmate to show (1) that the prison official acted in retaliation 28 for the exercise of a constitutionally protected right, and (2) that the action “advanced no 1 legitimate penological interest”).

Loreto asserts that the burden of proving that it is not an exempt organization is on the petitioner, and the petitioner does not meet that burden. ‘We review the allocation of the burden of proof, a question of law, de novo.” Estate of Abraham v. C.I.R., 408 F.3d 26, 35 (1st Cir.), amended by 429 F.3d 294 (1st Cir. 2005).

Cf. Estate of Abraham v. C.I.R., 408 F.3d 26, 35 (1st Cir.) (‘We review the allocation of the burden of proof, a question of law, de *369 novo.”), amended by 429 F.3d 294 (1st Cir.2005).

Estate of Abraham v. C.I.R., 408 F.3d 26, 35 (2005). 7 Massachusetts law governs this issue, Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U.S. 109, 117 , 63 S.Ct. 477 , 87 L.Ed. 645 (1943), and it does not call for the burden of proof to automatically be borne by the filing party in a declaratory action (here, Adelson).

Cf. Estate of Abraham v. Comm’r, 408 F.3d 26, 35 (1st Cir.2005) (holding that where notice of deficiency fails adequately to describe the basis on which the Commissioner relies for his deficiency determination, burden shifts to the Commissioner to prove the accuracy of the deficiency determination).

See Strangi, 417 F.3d at 477-78 (upholding tax court’s finding of an implied agreement to retain possession and control where decedent transferred 98% of his wealth to a family limited partnership (FLP) two months before his death, leaving himself just $762 in liquid assets, and thereafter lived rent free in transferred house and received nearly $34,000 from FLP to cover living expenses and over $100,000 to cover funeral payments, estate administration expenses, specific beq…

See Strangi, 417 F.3d at 477-78 (upholding tax court's finding of an implied agreement to retain possession and control where decedent transferred 98% of his wealth to a family limited partnership (FLP) two months before his death, leaving himself just $762 in liquid assets, and thereafter lived rent free in transferred house and received nearly $34,000 from FLP to cover living expenses and over $100,000 to cover funeral payments, estate administration expenses, specific beq…

See Estate of Abraham v. Commissioner, 408 F.3d 26, 36 (1st Cir. 2005) (stating there is no requirement that a notice of deficiency be as detailed as a trial brief), aff’g T.C.

See Estate of Abraham v. Comm’r, 408 F.3d 26, 35 (1st Cir. 2005). 1.

In order to make such an inference "all facts and circumstances surrounding the transfer and subsequent use of the property must be considered." Estate of Rapelje v. Comm'r, 73 T.C. 82, 86 , 1979 WL 3799 (1979); accord Estate of Abraham v. Comm'r, 408 F.3d 26, 39 (1st Cir.2005); see also 26 C.F.R. § 20.2036-1 . "[T]he burden is on the decedent's estate to disprove the existence of any adverse implied agreement or understanding and `that burden is particularly onerous when in…

See Estate of Abraham v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 408 F.3d 26, 28 , amended by 429 F.3d 294 (1st Cir.2005); see also Compl. ¶¶ 13-16.

See Estate of Abraham v. Commissioner, 408 F.3d 26 , 39 (1st Cir. 2005), *167 affg.

See Estate of Abraham v. Commissioner, 408 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2005) , affg.

See Vargas-Salazar v. Garland, 119 F.4th 167, 172 (1st Cir. 2024); see also Est. of Abraham v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 408 F.3d 26, 35 (1st Cir. 2005) (describing the burden of proof as a question of law), amended per curiam, 429 F.3d 294 (1st Cir. 2005).

See Vargas-Salazar v. Garland, 119 F.4th 167, 172 (1st Cir. 2024); see also Est. of Abraham v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 408 F.3d 26, 35 (1st Cir. 2005) (describing the burden of proof as a question of law), amended per curiam, 429 F.3d 294 (1st Cir. 2005).

See e.g., Estate of Abraham v. Commissioner, 408 F.3d 26, 35 (1st Cir.2005) (“[Wjhere the Notice of Deficiency fails to adequately ‘describe the basis on which the Commissioner relies to support a deficiency determination’ and the Commissioner seeks to establish the deficiency on a basis not described in the Notice, the burden shifts to the Commissioner on that new basis.”) (quoting Shea v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 183, 197 , 1999 WL 177471 (1999)).