Antonin Scalia

“ If the BAPCPA had thought such adjustments necessary, surely it would have taken the much simpler and more logical step of providing going in that the ownership expense allowance would apply only so long as monthly payments were due.
The reality is, to describe it in the Court's own terms, that occasional overallowance (or, for that matter, underallowance) "is the inevitable result of a standardized formula like the means test . . . . Congress chose to tolerate the occasional peculiarity that a brighter-line test produces." ”

“ The point of the statutory language is to entitle debtors who own cars to an ownership deduction, and I have little doubt that debtors will be able to choose correctly whether to claim a deduction for one car or for two. ”

“ Given the clarity of those limitations to actual outlays, it seems strange for Congress to limit the car-ownership deduction to the somewhat peculiar category "cars subject to any amount whatever of outstanding indebtedness" by the mere word "applicable," meant as incorporation of a limitation that appears in instructions to IRS agents. [*]
I do not find the normal meaning of the text undermined by the fact that it produces a situation in which a debtor who owes no payments on his car nonetheless gets the operating-expense allowance. ”