As befits a Moran, I got my Irish up at a 341 meeting when the UST’s representative announced that “we don’t allow retirement deductions on Schedule I”.  Huh?  Did she intend to utter fighting words?

First point, as far as I could see, she wasn’t wearing a black robe, so the issue of “allowance” was neither hers nor the UST’s.  Judges decide disputed questions and the UST is no more than a party in interest in a bankruptcy proceeding.

Second point, I’ve always thought that the schedules should reflect the facts.  My client has contributions to her 403(b) retirement plan deducted from her paycheck.  I duly show that on Schedule I, so that as far as possible, Schedule I reflects the current income and deduction situation.  Where does this person come from when she says we don’t “allow” scheduling of deductions?

Third point, if you want to argue that for purposes of the 707(b) analysis, retirement savings may not be an allowable deduction, make that argument, preferably not at the 341 meeting.  Think and speak precisely.

Then, there is the point that, in this case, the Income less Expenses calculation is $3400 underwater.  Is this exercise on the UST’s part a good use of scarce government resources?  Do they think there are $3400 worth of mistakes all of which cut in their favor?  Or is this just a matter of doing something so we justify our budget?  [Personally, I'm waiting to see the UST's professed interest in creditor abuse manifest itself.]

My suspicion is that the attitude of the UST’s office as being almighty slipped into this unfortunate’s choice of words.