forth in Oliver and finds that the expense component of “projected disposable income” should be a reflection of Debtors’ applicable or actual projected expenses allowed by the Means Test. See Solomon, 67 F.3d at 1132 (the court must determine disposable income by determining what portion of income is disposable pursuant to statutory definition). Congress has mandated that courts allow debtors those categories of expenses recognized under the Means Test so long as those expenses are “reasonably necessary” and “to be expended.” See 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(2) and (3). The word “projected” is relevant to determine allowed expenses because “projected” modifies “disposable income,” which is a computation of both income and ex penses. See McPherson, 350 B.R. at 44-45. Renicker, 342 B.R. at 309 (<HOLDING>). The phrases “to be received in the applicable
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 abovemedian debtors is disposable income as defined by  1325b holding the plain language of  1325b2 unambiguously indicates that prospective not historical expenses are to be used to calculate disposable income holding that personal injury settlement proceeds are disposable income to the extent that they are not reasonably necessary for the support of the debtors 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