required one of the really tricky parts of this case is that the ransom case which appears to be quite on point and from the supreme court has what appears to be contradictory on the one hand it says that we fuel expenses were spent on this truck if you was no owner operator similarly someone who is self employed and does considerable work for lift for any of the other delivery services that are so prevalent now days wouldn't be able to take appropriate direction for fuel and true i mean in the cases those parents realize they're not the kind of transportation expenses that are really intended to be bubbled up in this particular category the business expenses you have here is we have one of those kept thirteen business cases then wouldn't they be a business expense rather than the cost of transportation of a chapter thirteen business expense or business case differs from court a court the court in which i practice it determined by whether or not the trustee ask for business examination and then the nd of those examples of the lift driver frequently it's not the case that they need to do a business examination and frequently it's not the case in which they present the detail of profit loss statement for examination but it is certainly the case that they would spend considerably more transportation money a lift driver driving a car all day i'm not the lead jet that that category if i'm just a situation where the discretion is the trustee and the only problem is if the testing doesn't agree with you the court lets discretion and true what's wrong with that well your honor already begun answering the question the system isn't run with trustees making final decision the trustees have discretion not to jack but the trust the discre has the check of judicial review of the court is the entity responsible for sharing that comply with the law the law in this case is what we're trying to determine and how that discretion should be exercised by the trustee and how these things should be judged by the court the i r s manual in this case the i r s handbook excuse being suggest that the i r s follows a standard called the production of income tax brief that draws the production of the better income and eventually can the debtors pay check results without incurring the expense to do specifically to transportation and i believe that in all of these examples include in the case of and the production of intent of income test would result in a reasonable reconciliation between the strictures of the means tested and the admitted rare cases in which expenses far exceed that amount when those expenses far exceed the means test are related to the production of the debtors income in this case because the better need to travel many many miles a bridge toll sections of their guy the handbook that cite the production of income tax is one of the sections that was cited by the supreme court the supreme court called it common sense to look at and call the gu ownership and the title of the day a chart that said ownership expenses doesn't mean that you only own a car you need a lot more than that now at st blush when reading would seem to indicate that if you own a car you would get an ownership  threshold stating that according to the i r s guidance in order to claim the ownership expense you needed not only to own a car but to make payments to secure data on the car that threshold isn't inherent in the code merely says to look standard in this case the i r s also has what i call an exit threshold and i think the i rest certainly understand that at a certain point their standard is insufficient and is undermined the purpose of the standard itself which is to allow debtors to pay the i r s the i r s is case in the bankruptcy case but that creditors as much as they can  them more on transportation but maybe there they've got excess budget someplace else and then the very high income debtors so what's wrong with leaving that but certainly these things are much easier if the trustee doesn't object then we wouldn't be here for back to that's exactly right and the judge certainly could ask for more today and put into your hearing if the judge thought that that was appropriate and if also the trust in the center or to it something that you know i always want but to say that because that's possible there should be no chance for the debtor to be heard i think is in juneau and i request that i can reserve the remaining statute is clear monthly expenses shall be the debtors applicable monthly expense amount specified under the national and local standards judge in the bankruptcy court in this case had no need to refer to anything else  kagan in ransome referred to other areas of the i r s guidelines in order to understand the term applicable better but the judge's tentative ruling in this case which was then adopted  as the judge is the court's final ruling so that there is no need to or further explanation of anything in this statute and that's why the judge didn't exercise the discretion to look beyond the table this panel found that the means test replaced the court's discretion and so what's happening here is that this statute is working exactly as it was intended to do and the trustee in this case did recognized that the guidelines can be persuasive but not controlling so long as the guidelines are not at odds with the bankruptcy code if the panel of dobbs palance on reasoning and for the understand the term applicable better because that is not something that was defined in the code but in this case judge snow bank in the bankruptcy court didn't need to turn to any any guidelines in order to ensure the statute and apply it two drivers in the household and on top of that the debtors have a mobile home which is which they're spending about four hundred dollars a month in maintenance payments for which is not necessary appellant's argument that's where we would find ourselves is looking at every single category for which the you know the means test was to replace the discretion of the court and the trustee for and basically way before this panel it was an odd turn of events because before we had oral arguments on a judge's tentative ruling big donors had already amended their plan and then amende the appropriate steps and properly preserve that issue for appeal here your honor the tide of the ruling had become the order of the court yet as when the debtors  hearing and subsequently entered an order making that's one of ruling the court's order that that issue was already moved before the bankruptcy court so you know you had your argument is was clear that they didn't believe that that would be appropriate and they want to to address it so yes technically maybe they should have waited for the ruling to be issued but it's clear where they are the only other way they could have done is wait for dismissal not that's your muted if you needed i don't know if we get there you want to thank you if i do my best to address the factual issues as well as my limitation on how on some places i may not be able to address the the trustee stated that the debtors are current on their plan however the debtors have recently moved to modify their plan to a token payment per month  transportation they could use could the car pull you know with their van full you know all the different things you would look at but they could also look at is it really fair to their creditors to let them have free card and i don't know if there's that service  way that the i r s would allow review and where the supreme court has looked that i rest guidance to prevent debtors from taking certain expenses the i r s also has g he didn't need to examine any training as evidence including a high risk for i believe that the judge found that he shouldn't review any extraneous guy which is significant and with