context: Under this interpretation, bankruptcy courts will continue to have some discretion over the calculations of each individual debtor's financial situation, with the result that the debtor's "projected disposable income" will end up more closely aligning with reality. This interpretation also comports with the congressional intent that above-median debtors pay the maximum they can afford and results in making workable the application of 11 U.S.C. SS 1325(b)(1)(B) for above-median debtors who have positive "disposable income," as well as for above-median debtors with negative "disposable income."
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 338 B.R. 723, 723
citation_a.parenthetical: Congress must have intended "disposable income" to be something different than "projected disposable income" or it would have used the same language in both places in the statute
citation_a.sentence: See Gonzalez, 388 B.R. at 304-05, 308-09 (rigid adherence to a debtor’s historical income would produce results inconsistent with the congressional purpose of BAPC-PA and inconsistent with common sense); see also Hardacre, 338 B.R. at 723 (Congress must have intended “disposable income” to be something different than “projected disposable income” or it would have used the same language in both places in the statute).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 388 B.R. 304, 304-05, 308-09
citation_b.parenthetical: rigid adherence to a debtor's historical income would produce results inconsistent with the congressional purpose of BAPC-PA and inconsistent with common sense
citation_b.sentence: See Gonzalez, 388 B.R. at 304-05, 308-09 (rigid adherence to a debtor’s historical income would produce results inconsistent with the congressional purpose of BAPC-PA and inconsistent with common sense); see also Hardacre, 338 B.R. at 723 (Congress must have intended “disposable income” to be something different than “projected disposable income” or it would have used the same language in both places in the statute).