taxable purposes.”), aff'd, 320 B.R. 357 (N.D.Ill.2005); In re Korhonen, 296 B.R. 492, 496-97 (Bankr.D.Minn.2003)(“[T]he amount discharged would be considered taxable income.”); In re Berscheid, 309 B.R. 5, 14 (Bankr.D.Minn.2002) (“Unle 005)(agreeing with the court below that participation in the ICRP is “an important indicator of good faith”); In re Tirch, 409 F.3d 677, 682-83 (6th Cir.2005)(stating that failure to take advantage of the ICRP is “not a per se indication of a lack of good faith,” but is “probative of [a debtor’s] intent to repay the loans”). Applying the totality of circumstances test, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Eighth Circuit also found eligibility for the ICRP to be relevant but not necessarily dispositive. In re Parker, 328 B.R. 548, 552 (8th Cir. BAP 2005)(<HOLDING>). This court has previously also held that
holding that debtors payments to investors were for reasonably equivalent value because such payments reduced the amount of the investors claims for rescission holding that payments made by third parties on behalf of debtors are disbursements notwithstanding the debtors lack of control over the funds holding that a debtors ability to make reduced payments under the icrp is relevant to the inquiry of whether the debtors reasonable future financial resources will cover payment of the debt while still allowing a minimal standard of living holding that the relevant time of inquiry is the date of the filing of the complaint holding even minimal payment required by the icrp could be beyond the debtors means