With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". argues it is not fundamentally fair to retroactively waive the tax refunds promised to creditors under the existing confirmation order. Additionally, one-half of the future net refunds, which are property of the estate, should be remitted toward the plan because they are akin to future earnings and are disposable income. The trustee points out that while the Seventh Circuit determined that modifications under section 1329 do not require a change in circumstances, Matter of Witkowski 16 F.3d 739 (7th Cir.1994), that court did not determine whether section 1325(b), which requires submission of all the debtor’s disposable income to the plan if there is an objection, was applicable when the trustee opposed the debtor’s modification. See also In re Than, 215 B.R. 430 (9th Cir. BAP 1997) (<HOLDING>). Regardless of whether or not the disposable

A: holding section 1325b did not apply to modification under section 1329 unless there is an objection from the trustee or from an unsecured creditor
B: holding that because creditors claim was unsecured after application of section 506a and because section 1325a5 does not apply to unsecured claims creditors lien could properly be avoided
C: holding trustee has not waived the right to bring a preference objection
D: holding that postconfirmation attempt to equitably subordinate claim of one general unsecured creditor in a class of general unsecured creditors was a violation of  1123a4
A.