reader tax refunds typically a little over three thousand dollars just to simplify let's say your tax refund is three thousand dollars just to make just to make the numbers he's under the western district of texas policy you're challenging as i understand it she would get a keep two thousand of the three thousand dollars and then the other thousands she goes to the trustee as per the way you wanted to do it is you would spread that three thousand dollars twelve pray rated over twelve months as part of his income calculation if it was done you it was done your way how much of the three thousand dollars would she keep and how much would she go to the trustee in her case you could kee right yes she is devoting her entire income to the creditors her income again consists of her wages and her child support and that equals about to move on her two thousand three hundred dollars for what we've done on the schedule of income we've added to that two hundred and seventy two dollars so that increases her income up to a ball over two thousand six hundred dollars a month on that you subtract the monthly women expenses right work for well over a one thousand ok that's what i'm saying it's really a dispute between should it be ok should it be pro rated month late or should it be done with this the way that western district all osiers in the tri state not arguing for this double counting well supreme court is the parent that you list all your income on schedule art and subtract your monthly living expenses with their products it's your overall income and that is what's required to plan says they're actually going to get more because of because the debtors that they have to charge over that five hundred every year in fact they are already has turned over well one hundred of that every year even though she's already built of over a one thousand in the plan but if it's not going to be double counted if the choice is do you have to put her on the schedule like you did tried to do or does it or is she going to keep two thousand and isn't she better off with the western district plan of keeping two thousand because like you said on needs that entire tax refund every year per household bood household is about brady is about three hundred and sixty dollars of model entertainment expense zoomer from zero to thirty dollars you dollars a month or for clothing for a household of three for five years is very tight budget for her to have turned over five hundred dollars a month of the year of the patch refund is is very you have to be a fight base louses to see if there are needs the money and the bankruptcy court would not do that here even though we could show that the dead are needed to keep the entire refund there are still required to turn over the extra  about three thousand dollars must be paid and in every case why not just the stylist or all local rule that says you have to turn over any extra income every year well the supreme court said you can't do that and that's mansur throughout the entire case and that question is if a debtor needs that tax refund to pay for reasonable necessary limits fences should she is it can still consider  to address them issues that were mentioned by opposing counsel in this case i'd like to inform the court that it's the basis of this the confirmation of the play and the plan itself in section four dollars relied heavily on the two thousand seventeen tax return for the debtor in this case in which the refund was three thousand two hundred and sixty one dollars the amount of earned income credit towards that refund was one thousand five hundred and seventy three dollars the remainder of it was the over with holdings of one thousand eight hundred and forty seven dollars so in this case when the debtor filed her schedule i she did so with payroll deductions for amounts with help the debtor did not revise this deduction on schedule i in any of the amendments filed their after two like actual tax liability as the majority of courts have held including the bankruptcy decisions in which the debtor heavily relies so much as in red lake and in re morale is if a debtor i turned over as a projected disposable income now there is no prohibition of a debtor in adjusting his or her withholdings it just merely requires the full disclosure on schedule why now the term project it requires a mathematic ach human and this ackerman is adjusted by deliberation and discretion section four point one is a great example is it a limb an ace the what ifs what if a refund is not received what if a refund is received and spent as opposed to needed throughout the year at the end of the day the bankruptcy would not come at a plant i did not commit all projected disposable income now the requirement to account for actual tax expense is much like the requirement for an above median debtor and i would refer this court to line sixteen of the official form one hundred and twenty two dollars c two which is part two of the means test this form instructs the debtor to deduct actual tax liability a debtor is required to include the amount paid in taxes less any relief from that from the total amount that is without to pay for the taxes now in this case the debtor months after filing her original budget and five days prior to hearing ro re give refunds in varying amounts over several amended schedules the debtor then st added expenses not originally budgeted on schedule j and also increase those that work and a decrease the prorated amounts that are correspondingly reduced those amounts for those same expenses that she added and for the same ones that she increased expenses that are in nature are somewhat fixed such as you have tricity water sewage trash food and housekeeping supplies for the same number of household members this is recognized by bankruptcy partition practitioners excuse me as backing into the numbers as is evident essentially maintaining the same thing each time failing to provide an explanation or support for the overall new increased expenses that are failed in accordance to those decisions in which she relies to show a specific an actual need now but i'd like to do and before i can do is left to answer my question why if they play right on the schedules like this dead or tried to do the reason that debtor is better off than with the western distant planets because they're also  the amendments in relation to the corresponding increases and decreases as it relates to the amounts appropriated on schedule a lie it can be inferred that the only reason that's being done is to retain the pre fight where in the co specifically requires the debtor to commit it the means test for an above median debtor requires the actual tax liability to be accounted for otherwise you're turning it over the refunds the majority of the decisions of bankruptcy court require the turn refund section four point one is the mechanism in this case much like the means test because it doesn't permit overestimation of a tax liability and then the debtor to later reap the benefits of an inflated refight the turnover of the refund corrects the error of the over withholding that section four dollars is no different from the means to us and you know in this case the the district that is the four sitting judges that adopted this plan provided this mechanism with flexibility and with flexibility from the debtors expenses and of course for those on into supported expenses and supports heart of the betsy performs which is to maximize payments to creditors now i would like to for this court to keep in mind the number of scheduled confirmation hearings before the bankruptcy courts and the same into a new division of the western district for the past two years in two thousand and eighteen the number of schedule confirmation hearings was two thousand eight hundred and sixty one in two thousand and nineteen it was two thousand eight hundred and twenty four and also please keep in mind that san antonio is just one of i get visions in the district  her disposal there would be no refund in the form of over withholding just to amortize over schedule live and according to section four dollars of the plan because you only other portion of the refund that remains would be earned income credit was less than two thousand dollars so the only person who is double counting anything would be the debtor by overestimating the tax liability along with amortizing then the refund the four plans that were developed over time by bankruptcy courts were implemented through local rules general orders or standing orders and were based on custom and practice within that particular court now the result was that  plans varied widely amongst the judicial districts and within the districts themselves this in turn prompted the bankruptcy rules committee to moat you seven national plan and it is noted within the advisory committee notes to the bankruptcy rules that number one different plans in different districts made it difficult for creditors to know where to look to determine treatment that in order confirming plan even if some of the provisions were not consistent with the color of the rules were binding army and the bankruptcy judges must ensure that provisions comply with the code even in the absence of the objection so the idea of the uniform plan structure what is this creditor bankruptcy judges and trustees in carrying out their responsibilities to review and their stand and administers plants now faced with the opposition i bankruptcy judges to the mandatory use of a single national plan the rules committee proposed rule th while it is undisputed that the code permits a debtor to file the plan will three thousand and fifteen dollars see required bankruptcy courts to either adopt a national plan or its own form plan for abuse within a single district the plan whether it be national or the district to the decision in rate parchman at that time approximately ninety percent of the districts adopted their own form plan compliant with three thousand and fifteen dollars but so that it could reflect its own existing customs and practice the section is invalid that it's contrary to in the code it sarah are right this one size fits all there's not a will allow for a case by case determination depending on is targeting the four point one conflict thing with the tenor of the code in that is that the debtor is treated individually on a case by case basis based on utility of the expose of two thousand dollars and the turnover the remainder has a negative impact on lower income debtors such as the debtor in this case because they are more likely to receive a refund soley as a result of tax credit  an excluded source of being such as social security and within the past year as determined by congress certain v a disability benefits this case establishes addressing the argument that am if he had suggested within its break they wanted to parcel out low income debtors and that low income debtors by virtue of section four or one and this debtor in this case would be required to turn over the in this case the debtor section when one benefited the debtor because the debtor retained earned income credit and retained by virtue of the retention up to two thousand dollars four hundred and twenty seven dollars of over with holdings that by which the majority of bankruptcy decisions determining that refunds are projected disposable income should have been turned over to the creditors does that answer your question your honor well i guess i mean you but you're saying though that you're saying it would be unlawful even when it would be ok even for someone who clearly had be armed and done tax credit as a refund yes because our income credit in additional child tax credit as a majority of the bankruptcy court decisions indicate that those are sources of income and are sources of income that are required to be turned over as protected but i don't think i mean is anyone saying well i don't think the dispute here is whether it's income i thought the dispute is should we have as judge stewart said a one size fits all which is this is that we're going to deal with that every time which is what the western diplomat does or should it be pro rated on these schedules and looked at on an individual basis  when saying the this money should just be excluded from the bankruptcy system the issue lies with section four dollars in the requirement to turn over the project disposable income on an annual basis the discretion afforded to bankruptcy courts with respect to determining projected disposable income was done in such a case was done in this case and in others within the district of efficiency and judicial economy section four what allows the debtors in the court to comply with existing case law that hol that refunds are disposable income as well as easing the administrative burdens on the wording controlling costs that would arise from the objections to operations and evidence here hearings i mean just imagine over two thousand eight hundred  issue of tax refunds alone the filing of the plan as stated by the bankruptcy court in any form the debtor wanted such as here writing section one on the other would create the administrative nightmare  well i know the southern district of texas bankruptcy court it's a big district also doesn't have this type of plan so how do they deal with that the southern district also has a situation in which they're creating a savings plan for the betters by requiring the debtors to turn over certain dollar amounts to the chapter thirteen trustee section or one in reality is no different than that because by allowing a debtor to retain up to two thousand dollars the district is allowing the de to retain as low as six thousand dollars up to ten thousand dollars as a savings plan essentially and that is to the detriment to some degree to an secured creditors because if the refund is considered rejected disposable income in its entirety and would have been required to be paid over the unsecured creditors dividend would have been vastly increased in fact it would have increased to approximately seventy six percent or about seventeen thousand seven hundred and sixty six dollars as opposed to the near twelve percent or two thousand seven hundred dollars that the debtor originally proposed it's a it's a distinction but without a real big difference the debtor at the end of the one to adopt a zone plan and to base it on existing customs and practices and a practice that of course was one holding that refines war disposable lin determining projected disposable link them at a chapter thirteen debtors required to commit to a plan much like the discretion afforded to bankruptcy courts in determining reasonable legal fees because the adoption of the streamline process for purposes of determining a in amount that a debtor can retain and how much an amount can be paid to creditors is no different from the no load compensation for counsel to use the lodestar method however this core in order to streamline a bankruptcy courts review chapter thirteen attorneys addressing the need for both issues and flexibility in handling the typically large number of cases reviewed each year lottery or anything else why does that change what your necessary expenses are i mean electricity you know you have your electricity expense you've got your food expense you've got your rent expense you've got your clothing we can pick up the other categories but we know how to me are when they are and if you end up getting some financial windfall why does that change or you're saying you know you're saying the trustees not accounted for the fact that maybe this refund is is going to add to the necessary expenses it's explain