according to their original contract terms, while the debtor’s actual plan may propose to surrender the collateral or (if permitted) to bifurcate an under-secured claim into secured and unsecured components or rea-mortize the debt at a reduced interest rate. Courts have reacted to these distortions in a number of ways. Some have simply applied the means test calculation regardless of result on the ground that Congress must have intended what it clearly said. See, e.g., In re Barr, 341 B.R. 181 (Bankr.M.D.N.C.2006); In re Alexander, 344 B.R. 742 (Bankr.E.D.N.C.2006). Others have articulated various circumstances under which they would depart from the calculation when it leads to a result that they believe was not what Congress envisioned. In re Edmunds, 350 B.R. 636 (Bankr. D.S.C.2006) (<HOLDING>); Beskin v. McPherson (In re McPherson), 350
holding that projected disposable income for abovemedian income debt or is not fixed by means test calculation that includes expenses that would not actually be incurred under plan such as car payments for car to be surrendered 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 projected disposable income for abovemedian debtors is disposable income as defined by  1325b holding that a debtors disposable income as calculated under 11 usc  1325b2 is not the same as a debtors projected disposable income but that it can be used as the presumptive projected disposable income holding that projected disposable income for an abovemedian income debtor would not include a deduction for contractual payments on undersecured debt that the debtor would not actually be required to pay because the plan bifurcated the claim or surrendered the collateral