1325(b)(1) because the plan does not include the payment of interest on unsecured claims. In support of its position, the IRS argues that because § 1325(b)(1) contains language virtually identical to the phrase “value, as of the effective date of the plan,” the subsection requires the payment of interest to account for the loss of value on deferred payments paid through the plan. Additionally, the IRS argues that the plain meaning rule requires the Court to find that the words used in § 1325(b)(1) should be construed to have the same meaning as they do in other parts of the Code which do allow the payment of interest. United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises Inc., 489 U.S. 235, 241, 109 S.Ct. 1026, 1030, 103 L.Ed.2d 290 (1989). See also In re Rhein, 73 B.R. 285, 287 (Bankr.E.D.Mich.1987) (<HOLDING>). This Court, however, disagrees with the IRS
recognizing that the court must give meaning to all the words in the claims recognizing that we must give meaning to all the words in the claims holding that a jury could find an intent to discriminate from evidence of use of code words such as all of you and one of them the words themselves are only relevant for what they reveal  the intent of the speaker holding that words in different sections of the same statute should be similarly construed under the canon of in pari materia holding that there is no reason why the words in one section in a code should have any different meaning ascribed to them than nearly identical words appearing in other sections of the same code id at 288