§ 92.4     Household Size and Comparison of CMI to Median Family Income: § 1325(b)(3)
Cite as:    Keith M. Lundin, Lundin On Chapter 13, § 92.4, at ¶ ____, LundinOnChapter13.com (last visited __________).

 

[1]

All Chapter 13 debtors are entitled to five deductions or exclusions from current monthly income (CMI) to calculate disposable income for purposes of the test for confirmation in § 1325(b).1 Four of those deductions—amounts included in CMI by § 101(10A)(B) but not received by the debtor; child support, foster care and disability payments; pension loan repayments; and contributions to an employee benefit plan—are determined in the same way for all Chapter 13 debtors without regard to whether CMI is above or below applicable median family income.2

[2]

The remaining deduction from CMI to determine disposable income is “amounts reasonably necessary to be expended—.”3 After BAPCPA, “amounts reasonably necessary to be expended—” is not determined in the same way for all Chapter 13 debtors. Debtors with CMI less than applicable median family income determine “amounts reasonably necessary to be expended—” under § 1325(b)(2)(A) and (B).4 Debtors with CMI greater than applicable median family income determine “amounts reasonably necessary to be expended—” in accordance with § 707(b)(2)(A) and (B).5

[3]

Once CMI is correctly determined6—and before CMI is reduced by the other four deductions that apply to all Chapter 13 debtors to determine disposable income—CMI must be compared to applicable median family income to determine which version of “amounts reasonably necessary to be expended—” applies to the debtor.

[4]

This comparison is described in § 1325(b)(3) as follows:

(3) Amounts reasonably necessary to be expended under [§ 1325(b)(2)] shall be determined in accordance with subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 707(b)(2), if the debtor has current monthly income, when multiplied by 12, greater than—
(A) in the case of a debtor in a household of 1 person, the median family income of the applicable State for 1 earner;
(B) in the case of a debtor in a household of 2, 3, or 4 individuals, the highest median family income of the applicable State for a family of the same number or fewer individuals; or
(C) in the case of a debtor in a household exceeding 4 individuals, the highest median family income of the applicable State for a family of 4 or fewer individuals, plus $525 per month for each individual in excess of 4.7
[5]

CMI, of course, is the term of art already discussed.8 CMI is annualized by § 1325(b)(3) for comparison to median family income. “Median family income” is defined in § 101(39A):

The term “median family income” means for any year—
(A) the median family income both calculated and reported by the Bureau of the Census in the then most recent year; and
(B) if not so calculated and reported in the then current year, adjusted annually after such most recent year until the next year in which median family income is both calculated and reported by the Bureau of the Census, to reflect the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers during the period of years occurring after such most recent year and before such current year.9
[6]

To perform the comparison in § 1325(b)(3), debtors’ counsel has to determine the household size of the debtor, determine the applicable state for the debtor and then select the appropriate median family income for that applicable state. This is perhaps not as simple as it appears.

[7]

Section 1325(b)(3) inconsistently measures the size of the debtor in terms of a “household” but then calls for the applicable median “family” income. Median income statistics are produced by the Census Bureau based on “family” size, based on “number of earners in family” and in two-year and three-year averages for “households.”10 “Household” and “family” do not mean the same thing for purposes of Census Bureau statistics. A family is “a group of two or more people who reside together and who are related by birth, marriage, or adoption.”11 In contrast, a household “includes all the people who occupy a housing unit as their usual place of residence,” without regard to whether the individuals are related by birth, marriage or adoption.12 The statute is not specific with respect to the date as of which household size should be determined.

[8]

Several courts have waded in on the issues when and how to calculate household size for § 1325(b)(3) purposes. In In re Fleishman,13 at the petition in February 2007, joint debtors had one young child and were expecting another child in June 2007. Because the debtors anticipated being a family of four during the life of the Chapter 13 plan, they listed their household size as including the unborn child. This difference in household size made a significant difference in the calculation of disposable income. For a household size of three, the Oregon median family income was $55,104. For a household of four, the Oregon median family income was $63,946. The debtors’ annual income was in between the two—$61,945. Counting the unborn child in the debtors’ household meant that the debtors had CMI less than applicable median family income and “amounts reasonably necessary to be expended—” would not be determined in accordance with the means test provisions in § 707(b)(2)(A) and (B).

[9]

Citing the Census Bureau definition of “household,” the bankruptcy court in Fleishman first determined that a household consists only of “persons living outside the womb.”14 The bankruptcy court found that interpreting household to exclude unborn children was consistent with other federal statutes and with the common use of the word.

[10]

Perhaps more interestingly, the hearing in Fleishman was on June 7, 2007. The decision recites that the debtors’ second child was expected on or about June 27, 2007. This raised the issue whether household size should be determined at the petition, at the hearing on confirmation or perhaps at some later date such as entry of an order confirming a plan. Citing the “effective date of the plan” language in § 1325(b)(1), the Fleishman court concluded that “the date that the plan is confirmed” was the “most logical” meaning of the term “effective date of the plan” and that definition would also control the timing for the calculation of household size. The bankruptcy court held that “at the time of the hearing on the Trustee’s objections to the Plan, the Debtors had a household of three, including the two Debtors and their one and one-half year-old son, but not appropriately including the Debtors’ unborn child.”15 Accordingly, confirmation was denied because the debtors’ calculation of disposable income was based on a four-person household.

[11]

Without knowing the rest of the story, we can only speculate whether the Fleishmans returned to the bankruptcy court with the same plan based on the same calculations after the birth of their fourth family member. But it is clear from Fleishman that at least one bankruptcy court determines household size at the effective date of the plan—defined as the hearing on confirmation.16 Based on a stipulation of the parties, one other bankruptcy court determined household size for § 1325(b) purposes as of the date of the petition.17

[12]

Beyond the unborn child question addressed in Fleishman, several courts have addressed whether a relationship—by blood, marriage or dependency—is required to be counted in a debtor’s household. Citing Census Bureau definitions, the bankruptcy court in In re Bostwick18 held that household size for § 1325(b)(3) purposes includes unrelated individuals sharing a rental unit.19 In In re Baker,20 the bankruptcy court included in the debtors’ household a 24-year-old daughter who lived with the debtors but was not claimed as a dependent for tax purposes. In In re Smith,21 an adult daughter and the daughter’s minor child residing in the debtors’ home were counted to determine size of household. As explained by the Smith court:

Congress for whatever reason chose not to define “household.” . . . “Household,” when used to delineate a group, can have two meanings. . . . [I]t may mean simply all of the persons who use a particular structure as their dwelling . . . . [I]t may also involve a familial relationship. . . . The Bureau of the Census opts for the former definition. For its purposes, a “household” consists of “all the people who occupy a housing unit.” . . . [T]he inference [in § 707(b)(2)(A)(ii)] is that household members and family members are to be treated as two distinct groups . . . . “[H]ousehold” as used in Section 1325(b)(4)[(A)(ii)] means all persons, related or not, who reside in the same housing unit as does the debtor.22
[13]

One bankruptcy court accepted, with some skepticism, a stipulation of the parties that “household” in § 1325(b)(3) includes some consideration of dependency. In In re Redley,23 one month before the petition, the debtor’s girlfriend moved into the debtor’s residence with her two children. The debtor was not the father of the children. The debtor claimed a household of one on the petition but amended to assert a household of four. The trustee objected to the increase in household size, and the issue of dependency came in this way:

Debtor and the Trustee have agreed that, to be in Debtor’s household as of the petition date, it is not sufficient that Singleton and her children simply lived under Debtor’s roof. Rather, Debtor and the Trustee agree that Singleton and her children had to have been Debtor’s “dependents.” . . . I will . . . accept the parties’ assumption that a dependency element is required for Singleton and her children to be considered part of Debtor’s household.24

In a footnote, the court noted that other courts have used a “broader definition of ‘household’” than that agreed to by the trustee and the debtors.25 Based on the “absence of any concrete evidence as to the support [the debtor] provided to Singleton and her children” the bankruptcy court rejected the debtor’s argument that household size increased from one to four.26

[14]

The stipulation in Redley is odd given that the girlfriend and her children moved into the debtor’s residence before the petition. The debtors in Redley asserted a larger household size for § 1325(b) purposes, and the Census Bureau definition of household would have gotten them there but for their agreement to add a dependency requirement to that definition.

[15]

The Census Bureau data necessary to determine the applicable median family income is available by a link on the U.S. Trustee Program’s Web page.27 The U.S. Trustee Program’s Web page instructs that median family income information is “published by the Census Bureau according to State and family size, and the data is updated each year.”28 The Census Bureau data linked to the U.S. Trustee Program’s Web site is “adjusted early each calendar year based upon the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers.”

[16]

By following the links on the U.S. Trustee Program’s Web page, a chart appears that is titled “Census Bureau Median Family Income By Family Size.” At this writing, the chart indicates it is to be used in cases filed on and after November 1, 2009, and that the amounts shown have been CPI adjusted “early each calendar year.” The chart available on the U.S. Trustee Program Web site includes columns for “one earner” and “family size” ranging from “two people” to “four people.”

[17]

Curiously, the median family income chart offered by the U.S. Trustee Program is not available anywhere on the Census Bureau Web page.29 The numbers offered by the U.S. Trustee may or may not be accurate of median family income statistics “calculated and reported” by the Census Bureau—that accuracy can only be determined once certain judgments are made about which Census Bureau report of median family income should be used. The U.S. Trustee chart omits important information that is calculated and reported by the Census Bureau—including margins of error in the median family income data. Because the statutory definition of median family income in § 101(39A) directs bankruptcy practitioners to Census Bureau data, not to charts created by the Justice Department, Chapter 13 practitioners are cautioned to go to the source data at the Census Bureau Web site.

[18]

The Census Bureau Median Family Income chart is organized by state and then by family size. Chapter 13 debtors must select the applicable state and the appropriate family size to determine the median family income amount.

[19]

“Applicable state” is not defined by the statute. For other purposes, the Bankruptcy Code, as amended by BAPCPA, sometimes carefully defines the applicable state as the state of the debtor’s domicile30 or the state of the debtor’s residence.31 To compare CMI to median family income, § 1325(b)(3) gives no clue to the meaning of “applicable state.” Debtors residing in one state but domiciled in another or living in one state and working in another might argue for whichever state produces the most advantageous numbers.

[20]

For a debtor in a household of one person, the median family income for the applicable state is the amount shown on the Census Bureau chart for “one earner.”32 Section 1325(b)(3)(B) provides that for a debtor in a household of two, three or four individuals, the applicable median family income is “the highest median family income of the applicable state for a family of the same number or fewer individuals.”33

[21]

This instruction is ambiguous. It could mean that the debtor in a household of two, three or four individuals is required to select the highest median family income listed for a family of one, two, three or four people for the applicable state. The phrase could also be interpreted to mean that the debtor has a choice of family size so long as the family size selected is equal to or less than the size of the debtor’s household, and then the debtor must select the highest median family income for a family of that size. This is a possible interpretation because Census Bureau Median Family Income data are sometimes reported based on the number of earners within the family. As family size changes and the number of workers in the family changes, median family income will go up or down.

[22]

This instruction becomes even more ambiguous if you consult the Census Bureau data as the statute instructs, rather than the concocted chart offered by the U.S. Trustee Program. As mentioned above, the Census Bureau publishes median family income data based on number of “people” and based on number of “earners.” If “highest median family income of the applicable state for a family of the same number or fewer individuals” includes consideration of the number of “earners,” then the median family income numbers drift substantially higher. For example, at this writing, a family of three in Tennessee with one earner is listed by the U.S. Trustee Program chart as having a median family income of $54,014. According to the Census Bureau, a Tennessee family of three with three earners has a median family income of $85,728. Is the three-earner amount the “highest median family income of the applicable state for a family of the same number or fewer individuals” when the family contains three people? Or is it the one-earner amount when there are three people in the family but only one is an “earner”? The two-earner and three-earner median family income amounts appear nowhere in the U.S. Trustee Program charts, but the “one earner” amount appearing on the U.S. Trustee Program charts seems to have been lifted directly from the one-earner column of the Census Bureau data. Is it implicit in the U.S. Trustee Program chart that the Department of Justice considers the one-earner amount to be the “highest” applicable median family income without regard to how many earners there are in a household? Or is reference to Census Bureau data always required if the household contains more than one earner? Does anyone know what an “earner” is for these purposes? The Bankruptcy Code provides no guidance, and the inconsistent use of “people,” “household” and “family” in the statute, in Census Bureau data and in the U.S. Trustee Program charts leaves nothing but confusion with respect to whether “earner” is material and how the earner data should be used.

[23]

Not to confuse matters worse, many attorneys who file Chapter 13 cases use computerized software such as Best Case. These software packages supply median family income information to the user and, to minimize the likelihood that a debtor’s attorney would enter an amount that is different from the amount the U.S. Trustee is expecting, some or all of the commercial software providers use the U.S. Trustee Program numbers rather than the “raw” data from the Census Bureau. This choice by the venders of commercial software is understandable, but it perpetuates the biases and inaccuracies in the charts offered by the Justice Department. There are at this writing no reported decisions on the subject, but in a battle between numbers off the U.S. Trustee Program charts and numbers “calculated and reported by the Bureau of the Census,” the Census Bureau data prevails. It seems likely that many debtors’ attorneys are not consulting the Census Bureau data and are not comparing that data to the U.S. Trustee Program charts to determine which applicable median family income numbers are correct. There are most certainly debtors from whom use of Census Bureau numbers is “better” than use of the U.S. Trustee Program charts. For example, as demonstrated above, households with more than one “earner” will have a higher applicable median family income using Census Bureau data than using the U.S. Trustee Program charts. Where are the decisions in which the U.S. Trustee or a Chapter 13 trustee has challenged a debtor’s use of the Census Bureau data?

[24]

Prior to April 1, 2007, for a household exceeding four individuals, § 1325(b)(3)(C) instructed the debtor to add “$525 per month for each individual in excess of four” to “the highest median family income of the applicable state for a family of four or fewer individuals.”34 After April 1, 2007, this amount adjusted to $575 per month for each individual in excess of four. Census Bureau data on median family income sometimes include family sizes in excess of four. It is not obvious why the statute substitutes a mathematical formula for the actual data for families larger than four persons. The actual adjustment necessary for each household member in excess of four was $6,300 (12 times $525) prior to April 1, 2007, and $6,900 (12 times $575) thereafter, to permit comparison to annualized CMI.

[25]

As a general rule median family income drifts upward from a family size of one to a family size of four for every state. The phrase “highest median family income” in § 1325(b)(3)(B) and (C) will almost always be the amount shown for the largest family size available based on the debtor’s household size if Census Bureau data for family sizes larger than four individuals are not consulted. On the other hand, Census Bureau data show that median family income often falls as family size rises through five or six persons to a seven-person family. The statute may have been written with the possibility in mind that a family size smaller than the debtor’s household size might produce a higher median family income. Capping the family size at four produces an internal ambiguity in the statute unless Census Bureau data different from that made available by the U.S. Trustee Program were contemplated by the statute.

[26]

But the effect of the odd wording of § 1325(b)(3)(C) is that CMI for households larger than four persons is measured against an artificial “applicable median family income” that rises by $6,900 (at this writing) for each household member greater than four. In fact, according to the Census Bureau, most families with more than four persons have family incomes that actually go down, not up, by comparison to smaller families. This means that larger households in Chapter 13 cases are more likely to have CMI less than applicable median family income than would be the case if actual Census Bureau median family income data were used for households larger than four persons.

[27]

Some would say this is “good” for larger households because they are less likely to be subject to the § 707(b)(2)(A) and (B) form of “amounts reasonably necessary to be expended—” in the calculation of disposable income for § 1325(b) purposes. As amply demonstrated below,35 this is at best a mixed blessing and sometimes a curse given that the expenses allowed by § 707(b)(2)(A) and (B) are often more generous than the actual “reasonable and necessary” expenses allowed debtors with CMI less than applicable median family income.36

[28]

Once the appropriate household size, applicable state and median family income number are selected, the calculation in § 1325(b)(3) is simple: compare annualized CMI to the applicable median family income amount. If annualized CMI is less than applicable median family income, then “amounts reasonably necessary to be expended—” will be determined using the rules in § 1325(b)(2)(A) and (B).37 If annualized CMI is greater than applicable median family income, then “amounts reasonably necessary to be expended—” will be determined in accordance with § 707(b)(2)(A) and (B).38

[29]

Official Form B22C in two places calls for comparison of annualized CMI to median family income; but, unfortunately, the form is inaccurate in one place and, until revisions in October 2006, was not applicable to all debtors in the other. Part II of Official Form B22C purports to calculate “commitment period” for purposes of § 1325(b)(4) by comparing “annualized current monthly income” to “applicable median family income.”39 The CMI number determined by Part II of Official Form B22C inappropriately includes a nonfiling spouse’s income.40 There is a “marital adjustment” at Line 13, but use of that adjustment is appropriate only if the debtor makes a specified “contention” with respect to the commitment period calculation under § 1325(b)(4). Even if the debtor makes the requisite “contention,” the adjusting amount has been inaccurately described by the instructions to Line 13 in various versions of Form B22C.41 The adjustment and calculation in Part II of Official Form B22C will not always accurately produce a comparison of CMI and applicable median family income to determine which version of the disposable income test applies under § 1325(b)(2) and (3).

[30]

This problem with Official Form B22C is then compounded in Part III of the form. Part III purports to apply § 1325(b)(3) to determine which version of the disposable income test must be used to calculate “amounts reasonably necessary to be expended—.” Part III contains a “marital adjustment” at Line 19 that is different from the adjustment at Line 13. After this adjustment, the form compares annualized CMI to applicable median family income at Lines 21 and 22.

[31]

Unfortunately, prior to revisions in October 2006, some Chapter 13 debtors—in particular, married debtors not filing jointly—were instructed by the calculations in Part II to skip Part III of the form. In other words, by following the instructions in Official Form B22C, some Chapter 13 debtors were misdirected to skip the comparison of annualized CMI to applicable median family income in Part III. This mistake was corrected with the October 2006 revision of Form B22C. Now all debtors are instructed to perform the calculations in Parts I–III, including the comparison of annualized CMI to applicable median family income at Line 23 of Part III.


 

1  See § 467.1 [ Projected Disposable Income: All Debtors ] § 92.2  Projected Disposable Income: All Debtors.

 

2  See §§ 489.1 [ Amounts Paid by Others under § 101(10A)(B) ] § 99.2  Amounts Paid by Others under § 101(10A)(B), 490.1 [ Child Support, Foster Care and Disability Payments ] § 99.3  Child Support, Foster Care and Disability Payments, 491.1 [ Pension Loan Repayments ] § 99.4  Pension Loan Repayments and 492.1 [ Employee Benefit Plan Contributions ] § 99.5  Employee Benefit Plan Contributions.

 

3  See 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(2) and (3), discussed in §§ 470.1 [ Section 1325(b)(2)(A) and (B): “Amounts Reasonably Necessary to Be Expended—” When CMI Is Less Than Applicable Median Family Income ] § 93.1  Section 1325(b)(2)(A) and (B): “Amounts Reasonably Necessary to Be Expended—” When CMI Is Less Than Median Family Income and 471.1 [ Big Picture: Too Many Issues ] § 94.1  Big Picture: Too Many Issues.

 

4  See § 470.1 [ Section 1325(b)(2)(A) and (B): “Amounts Reasonably Necessary to Be Expended—” When CMI Is Less Than Applicable Median Family Income ] § 93.1  Section 1325(b)(2)(A) and (B): “Amounts Reasonably Necessary to Be Expended—” When CMI Is Less Than Median Family Income.

 

5  See § 471.1 [ Big Picture: Too Many Issues ] § 94.1  Big Picture: Too Many Issues.

 

6  See §§ 379.1 [ Form B22C: Statement of Current Monthly Income ] § 36.19  Form 122C-1: Statement of Current Monthly Income and 468.1 [ Current Monthly Income: The Baseline ] § 92.3  Current Monthly Income: The Baseline.

 

7  11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(3).

 

8  See 11 U.S.C. § 101(10A), discussed in §§ 379.1 [ Form B22C: Statement of Current Monthly Income ] § 36.19  Form 122C-1: Statement of Current Monthly Income and 468.1 [ Current Monthly Income: The Baseline ] § 92.3  Current Monthly Income: The Baseline.

 

9  11 U.S.C. § 101(39A).

 

10  See http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/statemedfaminc.html.

 

11  Glossary at http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en.

 

12  Glossary at http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en.

 

13  372 B.R. 64 (Bankr. D. Or. July 9, 2007) (Dunn).

 

14  372 B.R. at 67.

 

15  372 B.R. at 74.

 

16  See also In re Baker, No. 08 B 72480, 2009 WL 412885, at *2–*3 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Jan. 30, 2009) (Barbosa) (For applicable commitment period purposes, median family income is based on household size at effective date of plan. “[T]he ‘applicable commitment period’ is determined ‘as of the effective date of the plan.’ . . . [C]ourts have held that the term ‘effective date of the plan[]’ . . . means the date that the plan is confirmed.”).

 

17  See In re Redley, No. 07-11534DWS, 2008 WL 597947, at *3 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Feb. 28, 2008) (unpublished) (Sigmund) (By stipulation, household size at the petition determines whether debtor has CMI above or below applicable median family income. “[T]he Trustee . . . views the petition date as the dispositive time for fixing household size. . . . Debtor and the Trustee have agreed that, to be in Debtor’s household as of the petition date, it is not sufficient that Singleton and her children simply lived under Debtor’s roof.”).

 

18  406 B.R. 867 (Bankr. D. Minn. June 23, 2009) (Kressel).

 

19  In re Bostwick, 406 B.R. 867, 872–73 (Bankr. D. Minn. June 23, 2009) (Kressel) (“[B]ecause ‘11 U.S.C. 101(39A)(A) defines the “median family income” as “the median family income both calculated and reported by the Bureau of the Census,”’ it is only fair to use the Census Bureau’s definition of household: ‘all of the people, related and unrelated, who occupy a housing unit.’ . . . Generally, a single-family home shared by unrelated persons is a single housing unit whose occupants comprise a single household, and the residence shared by Bostwick and Weis is no exception. The relationship among residents is not a consideration in the Census Bureau’s definition . . . . Although Bostwick and Weis each are entitled to private use of some parts of the house . . . it remains a single-family home with a shared bathroom, kitchen, living room, yard, and laundry. . . . None of this rises to the level of ‘separateness’ that the Census Bureau’s definition of housing unit requires. In fact, the Census Bureau’s definition specifically includes ‘unrelated people sharing a housing unit such as partners or roomers’ . . . . Bostwick and Weis, despite their separate leases, are a single household for the purposes of 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)[(3)] and Bostwick is entitled to claim a household of two.”).

 

20  No. 08 B 72480, 2009 WL 412885 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Jan. 30, 2009) (Barbosa).

 

21  396 B.R. 214 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. Oct. 15, 2008) (Hughes).

 

22  396 B.R. at 216–17.

 

23  No. 07-11534DWS, 2008 WL 597947 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Feb. 28, 2008) (unpublished) (Sigmund).

 

24  2008 WL 597947, at *3.

 

25  2008 WL 597947, at *3 & n.9.

 

26  2008 WL 597947, at *4.

 

27  See http://www.justice.gov/ust/eo/bapcpa/index.htm.

 

28  http://www.justice.gov/ust/eo/bapcpa/index.htm.

 

29  This is a variation of the fabrication of IRS charts by the U.S. Trustee Program with respect to the Local Standards deductions allowed by § 707(b)(2)(A) for Chapter 13 debtors with CMI greater than applicable median family income. See §§ 380.1 [ Form B22C: Disposable Income Calculation ] § 36.21  Form 122C-2: Disposable Income Calculation and 476.1 [ Local Standards: Housing and Transportation ] § 95.3  Local Standards: Housing and Transportation.

 

30  See 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3)(A).

 

31  See 11 U.S.C. § 109(h)(2)(A).

 

32  11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(3)(A).

 

33  11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(3)(B).

 

34  11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(3)(C) (before adjustment on April 1, 2007).

 

35  See discussion beginning at § 94.1  Big Picture: Too Many Issues.

 

36  See § 470.1 [ Section 1325(b)(2)(A) and (B): “Amounts Reasonably Necessary to Be Expended—” When CMI Is Less Than Applicable Median Family Income ] § 93.1  Section 1325(b)(2)(A) and (B): “Amounts Reasonably Necessary to Be Expended—” When CMI Is Less Than Median Family Income.

 

37  See § 470.1 [ Section 1325(b)(2)(A) and (B): “Amounts Reasonably Necessary to Be Expended—” When CMI Is Less Than Applicable Median Family Income ] § 93.1  Section 1325(b)(2)(A) and (B): “Amounts Reasonably Necessary to Be Expended—” When CMI Is Less Than Median Family Income.

 

38  See § 471.1 [ Big Picture: Too Many Issues ] § 94.1  Big Picture: Too Many Issues.

 

39  See §§ 379.1 [ Form B22C: Statement of Current Monthly Income ] § 36.19  Form 122C-1: Statement of Current Monthly Income, 379.2 [ Form B22C: Commitment Period Calculation ] § 36.20  Form 122C-1: Commitment Period Calculation and 380.1 [ Form B22C: Disposable Income Calculation ] § 36.21  Form 122C-2: Disposable Income Calculation.

 

40  See Part I of Official Form B22C, discussed in § 379.1 [ Form B22C: Statement of Current Monthly Income ] § 36.19  Form 122C-1: Statement of Current Monthly Income.

 

41  See § 379.2 [ Form B22C: Commitment Period Calculation ] § 36.20  Form 122C-1: Commitment Period Calculation.