44. The court agrees with defendant that if it were to hold a trial to investigate the actual liquidity needs of the Tribe for all 223 months included in fiscal years 1973 through 1992 that have not yet been tried, it is quite likely that in some months the Tribe’s liquidity needs may well have exceeded $25,000 in cash; the court further agrees that Exhibit K to defendant’s Response likely indicates such an occurrence. However, that potential conclusion is irrelevant, because “BIA policy, as presented by defendant at trial, was to invest cash surpluses in excess of $25,000 in CDs or in U.S. T-bills.” Osage II, 72 Fed.Cl. at 667 (citing trial testimony of Charles Reynold Lundelius, Jr., Trial Tr. 2098: 11-25, 2100: 14-21); accord Blankenship v. Boyle, 329 F.Supp. 1089, 1096 (D.D.C.1971) (<HOLDING>). There is simply no evidence that cash and
holding that the statement of current monthly income was the presumptive amount of projected disposable income but presumption could be rebutted by the debt or upon a showing of substantial change of circumstances holding that for abovemedian income debtors projected disposable income calculated on form b22c is the starting point but not the ending point in determining debtors correct minimum obligation and both income and expenses must be determined as of date of confirmation holding that because the amount of the debtors obligation to the government exceeded the amount of their income tax refund the refund did not become property of the estate and could not be exempted holding that the maintenance of a large amount of cash where income and outgo were constant and where government securities could be redeemed on short notice violated the fiduciary obligation to maximize the trust income by prudent investment holding that corporations real estate investment activity was part of its unitary business and thus its portfolio income was correctly included in its apportioned income