which a debtor may be discharged of his student loan obligations.’ ” (quoting In re Correll, 105 B.R. 302, 306 (Bankr.W.D.Pa.1989))). Moreover, Gouge admitted receiving a $3,000 tax refund in 2004 and it is likely that he will receive such refunds in the future. The Court finds that further development of the record is necessary to ascertain whether repayment of all or a portion of this debt will prevent him from maintaining a minimal standard of living for himself and his wife, based upon his current income and expenses. In re Saxman, 325 F.3d 1168, 1173 (9th Cir.2003) (“[B]ankruptcy courts may exercise their equitable authority under 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) to partially discharge student loans.”); In re Mort, 272 B.R. 181 (W.D.Va.2002); In re Kapinos, 243 B.R. 271, 273-76 (W.D.Va.2000) (<HOLDING>). It also appears that the current situation is
holding that the bankruptcy court lacked the power under  105a to grant the partial discharge of student loan debt when the debtor did not show undue hardship as required by statute holding that counsel would suffer undue hardship if motion to withdraw was not granted because client failed to pay over 120000 in legal fees yet expected continued representation by counsel holding that al though the material sought was work product the party seeking discovery showed that it would not be able to obtain the materials without undue hardship holding that the debtor must pay the government interest at the rate the debtor would pay a commercial lender for a loan of equivalent amount and duration considering the risk of default and any security recognizing that although the fourth circuit has not yet addressed the issue partial discharge may be granted to the extent that it would be an undue hardship for the debtor to have to pay that portion of the loan that is to be discharged