(b), the plan complies with the provisions of each of the six paragraphs of subsection (a). Consequently, the “court is required to confirm if [the] six requirements are met.” H. Rept. No. 95-595 to accompany H.R. 8200, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. (1977) p. 430. See also, S. Rept. No. 95-989 to accompany S. 2266, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. (1978) p. 142. Unlike § 1129, which allows confirmation “only if’ all of its requirements are met, § 1325(a) does not impose mandatory requirements. In re Szostek, 886 F.2d 1405, 1412 (3d Cir. 1989). The Court has discretion, therefore, to confirm a plan which satisfies §§ 1322 and 1325(b) but does not satisfy § 1325(a). Id. Britt, 199 B.R. at 1006-07. Shaw also relies on, but does not discuss, the following cases: In re Escobedo, 28 F.3d 34 (7th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); In re Burgess, 143 Fed.Appx. 692 (7th Cir.
holding that a plan under chapter 13 although confirmed was invalid because it failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of 11 usc  1322a2 requiring full payment of all claims entitled to priority holding that dismissal of a chapter 13 case vacates a confirmed plan holding that a confirmed chapter 13 plan is binding on all parties under 11 usc  1327a however the plan may be modified pursuant to 11 usc  1329 holding that a plan must be amended to provide for payment of a priority tax claim proof of which was timely filed postconfirmation to conform with 11 usc  1322a2 holding that priority claims can be paid concurrently with other creditors over the life of a chapter 13 plan