With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". disposable income.” Therefore, the only reasonable explanation is that Congress intended to change the definition of disposable income from its pre-BAPCPA computation, i.e. subtracting Schedule J expenses from Schedule I income, to the computation as specifically stated within the definition provided by Section 1325(b)(2). First, to judicially modify the definition of “disposable income” as given in § 1325(b)(2). would require the court to create a formula for determining payments to unsecured creditors, rather than following the clear statutory definition. Several courts have concluded that use of the word “projected” distinguishes projected disposable income from disposable income, as defined in Section 1325(b)(2) and requires that the court use the “old” method of computing di (<HOLDING>). While these may-sound like reasonable means

A: holding that a debtors disposable income as calculated under 11 usc  1325b2 is not the same as a debtors projected disposable income but that it can be used as the presumptive projected disposable income
B: holding that projected disposable income for abovemedian debtors is disposable income as defined by  1325b
C: holding that the disposable income arrived at with form b22c is a beginning point for evaluating the debtors past and current financial status
D: holding that personal injury settlement proceeds are disposable income to the extent that they are not reasonably necessary for the support of the debtors
C.