estate with the court.” [emphasis added by the Root court.] The court reasoned that this task would be impossible to perform if the entire estate extinguished upon confirmation. The debt- or in Root had made his payments for fees to his attorney before he received the IRS’s notice. The court noted that there was no evidence that the IRS was specifically seeking to levy on that portion of the property and earning which remained property of the estate post-confirmation, but concluded that if there had been such evidence, the court would have found that the IRS was in violation of the stay. See also, In re Clark, 71 B.R. 747 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1987) (adopting the reasoning of the Root court and expressly rejecting the Mason court’s reasoning) and In re Aneiro, 12 B.R. 424 (Bankr.S.D.Cal.1987) (<HOLDING>). A basic doctrine of statutory construction
holding that the clear language of section 1306 establishes that confirmation of a chapter 13 plan is not relevant to determining whether property is or is not property of the estate holding that bankruptcy court is without jurisdiction to control disposition of chapter 13 debtors property that is not property of the bankruptcy estate unless the property is related to the bankruptcy proceedings of the code holding that confirmation vests in the debtor property of the estate not dedicated to the plan holding that workers compensation awards remained property of the estate despite confirmation of the debtors plans where the confirmation orders specifically provided that property of the estate did not vest in the debtor until the completion of the plan holding that since property of the chapter 7 estate relates back to what was property of the bankruptcy estate when the chapter 13 was commenced and since the debtor still has the vehicle in his possession the present equity in the vehicle does not belong to the chapter 7 trustee or to unsecured creditors of this estate