However, one far more significant provision of the Bankruptcy Code that the bankruptcy court did not mention, but that the district court found dispositive, is 11 U.S.C. § 102(7), which provides that “[i]n this title—... (7) the singular includes the plural.” The Dictionary Act contains a similar provision. See 1 U.S.C. § 1 (“In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise-words importing the singular include and apply to several persons, parties, or things.... ”). The Church, relying on two cases regarding the Dictionary Act, argues that we should not apply § 102(7) unless it is necessary to carry out the evident intent of the statute. See First Nat’l Bank in St. Louis v. Missouri, 263 U.S. 640, 657, 44 S.Ct. 213, 68 L.Ed. 486 (1924) (<HOLDING>); see also Toy Mfrs. of Am., Inc. v. Consumer
holding that the rule is that where the guilt of an accused is evident incidental improper action upon the part of the prosecuting officer may be overlooked holding that 1 usc  1 does not apply except where it is necessary to carry out the evident intent of the statute holding the word carry includes the carrying of a firearm in a vehicle holding the rule that the singular includes the plural obviously  is not one to be applied except where it is necessary to carry out the evident intent of the statute recognizing equitable powers necessary and appropriate to carry out the provisions of this title