In re Smith, No. 07-43853, 2008 WL 4964720, at *3 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. Nov. 14, 2008) (Snyder) (Citing Maney v. Kagenveama (In re Kagenveama), 541 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2008), secured debts contractually due at the petition are reasonable and necessary expenses for debtor with CMI greater than applicable median family income notwithstanding that plan surrenders collateral. “The statute is not ambiguous and for an above median debtor, expenses are to be determined solely by § 707(b)(2). Thus, if a given expenditure is allowed by § 707(b)(2), it is by definition ‘reasonably necessary to be expended’ for purposes of calculating ‘disposable income’ under § 1325(b)(2). The Court is unwilling to read into the language of § 1325(b)(3) an additional threshold requirement that the expenses also be reasonably necessary, or for a debtor’s maintenance or support. Although such an interpretation will surely lead to a more equitable result in this case and in the future provide greater discretion to bankruptcy courts, in light of Kagenveama this Court will not apply a strained interpretation when the language of § 1325(b)(3) is clear and unambiguous…. As with ‘disposable income,’ the term ‘amounts reasonably necessary to be expended’ appears only twice in § 1325; once in § 1325(b)(2) and then in § 1325(b)(3). If the Court were to require an additional requirement that the expense also be necessary for a debtor’s ‘maintenance or support,’ it would likewise render as surplusage the clear direction in § 1325(b)(3) as to how ‘amounts reasonably necessary to be expended’ shall be determined.”).

See Also: Bankruptcy Lawyers Austin