payments of $500.00, vehicle payments of $345.00, and the educational loan payments in the amount of $685.00. In fact, Plaintiff has never made payments on these educational loans. Further, this amount could clearly be reduced based upon one of the repayment options available to Plaintiff. In fact, if Plaintiff were to enroll in IBR, his payment would be reduced to $0. Based on the facts of this case, Plaintiffs highly speculative argument that he may incur a substantial tax debt due to cancellation of debt in the future under a repayment plan does not provide a reasonable explanation as to why Plaintiff has not pursued such an administrative option in an attempt to reduce his expenses. Assessment of expenses, however, is not the end of the analysis. See Davis, 526 B.R. at 145 (<HOLDING>). According to Plaintiffs Schedule I, he is
holding that debtors have the burden of proving that other necessary expenses on form b22c are actual reasonable and necessary expenses and that these expenses should be considered in light of schedule j and other relevant evidence holding that in an agreement where the father agreed to pay reasonable expenses to the extent that such expenses are not provided by any scholarship grant or other assistance for his sons education those expenses did not include loan repayment because it was not one of the forms of enumerated assistance holding that although a review of the debtors expenses indicates that there is little room for her to further reduce or eliminate her cost of living expenses and all of those expenses appear reasonable based on the current record there nevertheless remains an opportunity for the debtor to increase her income in an amount that could be used to repay her current student loan obligations holding that an award for medical expenses is proper when the expenses have been incurred but not paid holding that threatening employee to mind her own business investigating her videotaping her without her permission and forcing her to take polygraph could not be considered adverse employment actions because they had no effect on conditions of employment