Itule v. Heath (In Re Heath)

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that since 11 U.S.C. § 1329 does not include a requirement of “substantial or unanticipated” changes, courts should not impose such a condition
• holding that section 1325(b) does not require the inclusion of tax refunds received by the debtors as projected disposable income
• holding that debtors are not required to include future tax refunds in projected disposable income absent a showing that the refunds are projected as the effective date of the plan
• finding that the burden shifts to the debtor to show that no tax refund is projected
• the trustee must show that the debtor may receive tax refunds during the plan term in order to require the debtor to commit such refunds to the plan

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).