a bankruptcy case can administer property that is not that of the debtor.” The district court affirmed for essentially the same reasons. We review the judgment of a district court sitting in review of a bankruptcy court de novo, applying the same standards of review applied by the district court. Thus, we review the bankruptcy court’s factual findings for clear error and its decisions of law de novo. Devan v. Phoenix Am. Life Ins. Co. (In re Merry-Go-Round Enters., Inc.), 400 F.3d 219, 224 (4th Cir.2005). II. Section 541 of the Bankruptcy Code governs the composition of the bankruptcy estate and provides a broad definition of “[pjroperty of the estate.” 11 U.S.C.A. § 541 (West 2006); see United States v. Whiting Pools, Inc., 462 U.S. 198, 205-06, 103 S.Ct. 2309, 76 L.Ed.2d 515 (1983) (<HOLDING>); Tignor v. Parkinson, 729 F.2d 977, 980 (4th
recognizing broad scope of the reorganization estate holding that discovery under the federal rules of civil procedure is broad in scope and freely permitted holding that postconfirmation income that isnot necessary to the fulfillment of the plan of reorganization does not become part of bankruptcy estate holding that postconfirmation income that is not necessary to the fulfillment of the plan of reorganization does not become part of the bankruptcy estate holding that postconfirmation income that is not necessary to the fulfillment of the plan of reorganization does not become pari of bankruptcy estate