OPINION
Thе United States Trustee (the “UST”) requests dismissal of the bankruptcy peti *83 tion of John M. and Susan P. Lanza (“Debtors”) alleging that, given the totality of their financial circumstances, their petition is an abuse of Chapter 7. Debtors assert in response that because their income is below the state median for a four-person household, their case may not be dismissed under § 707(b)(3) simply because they have the ability to repay their creditors. At a hearing on November 22, 2010, the parties argued their positions on the legal issues. The Court requested that they submit the matter on stipulated facts and briefs, which were filed on December 13, 2010. 1
I. Factual Findings
On July 30, 2010, Debtors filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 7. Debtors are individuals whose reported debts are primarily consumer in nature. At the time they filed their Chapter 7 petition, Debtors’ annual income was below the state median income for their household size. 2 Their unsecured debts total $52,788, including student loan debts totaling $24,481.
The parties have stipulated to two sets of facts regarding Debtors’ expenses. The first category pertains to Debtors’ housing expenses. As reported in their schedules, Debtors have net monthly income of $5004 and net monthly expenses of $5192. Their expenses include a monthly mortgage payment of $1173 for a property located in Florida, where they lived until September 2008. Debtors were unable to sell the Florida property because its fair market value was significantly less than the liens against it; spеcifically, the home was valued at $69,500 with hens of $201,269. Debtors rented the property in 2008, 2009, and 2010, but filed a statement with the Court that they intend to surrender their former residence to the mortgagee. 3 In addition to their residence, Debtors held an interest in a Florida timeshare, which required a monthly payment of $255. Debtors also intend to surrender the timeshare interest. At the time they filed thеir bankruptcy, Debtors were contractually obligated to make the monthly payments for both the residence and the timeshare. Since the commencement of the bankruptcy case, Debtors have not made any payments on either obligation and do not expect to make any further payments. Debtors currently reside in a parsonage in Pennsylvania and do not incur housing expenses.
The second category of relevant facts concern educational expenses for Debtors’ child. Debtors make a monthly student loan payment of $564 and a monthly col *84 lege tuition payment of $546 for the benefit of their 21-year-old daughter.
II. Discussion
The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (“BAPCPA”) was enacted by Congress in 2005 “to correct perceived abuses in the bankruptcy system.”
Ransom v. FIA Card Services, N.A.,
— U.S.-,
To ensure that debtors who can pay do pay, Congress made significant modifications to § 707(b). 4 Section 707(b)(1) provided that “a court ... may dismiss a case if it finds that the granting of relief would be an abuse of the provisions of this chapter.” Section 707(b) provides two processes to evаluate whether a case is an abuse of Chapter 7; these processes are found in § 707(b)(2) and § 707(b)(3). Section 707(b)(2) defines the Means Test, which requires debtors to perform certain mathematical computations to determine whether they have disposable income. If a debt- or has disposable income, a bankruptcy court must presume that the case is an abuse of the chapter. This purely mathematical test channels debtors away from Chapter 7 and into Chapter 13 unless they can rebut the presumption of abuse. However, a debtor and his spouse whose income is equal to or below the median family income for the same size household in the applicable state is not subjeсt to the Means Test. 11 U.S.C. § 707(b)(7). When the presumption of abuse does not arise or is rebutted and a motion to dismiss is filed under § 707(b)(3), the bankruptcy court is required to “consider whether the debtor filed his petition in bad faith or whether the totality of the circumstances of the debtor’s financial situation demonstrates abuse.” 11 U.S.C. § 707(b)(3).
A. Reconsideration of the holding in Athens
In the Factual Findings, the parties have stipulated that Debtors’ current monthly income is below the median income for a four-person household in Pennsylvania. Therefore, under 11 U.S.C. § 707(b)(2), they were not required to complete the Means Test when they filed their Chapter 7 petition, and their case is not subject to the statutory presumptions regarding abuse. Debtors’ argument is correct as far as it goes. However, Debtors further argue that because their case is not subject to the Means Test, the Court may not examine their schedules of income and expenses to determine whether, when considering the totality of the circumstances, they have the ability to pay a significant portion of their unsecured debt. The UST counters that a court may find a case to be abusivе under § 707(b)(3) even when the § 707(b)(2) presumptions regarding abuse are inapplicable. As I have ruled in a prior decision, I agree with the UST.
*85
In
In re Athens,
Debtors ... are only safe from a presumption of abuse that might otherwise arise under paragraph (b)(2) and are not beyond the reach of paragraph (b)(3)’s comprehensive, statutorily-mandated inquiry into their fitness for chapter 7 relief.... When no presumption of abuse arises under paragraph (b)(2), the Court concludes that the Code mandates consideration of a debtor’s ability to pay his creditors within the test articulated in paragraph (b)(3).
Id.
at 15 (citing
In re Pak,
Section 707(b)(7) limits the application of § 707(b)(2) to above median debtors, but there is no provision in either (b)(2) or (b)(3) that limits the review of a debtor’s financial circumstances when determining whether a case is abusive under the totality of the circumstances. “Section 707(b)(2)(A) creates a statutory presumption of abuse in certain circumstances but offers no safe harbor to those debtors with respеct to whom this statutory presumption does not arise.”
In re Zaporski,
Debtors have asked me to revisit my holding in
Athens
because in
In re Walker,
The сanon of negative implication provides that the enumeration of a group or series of items excludes items not mentioned.
United States v. Vonn, 535
U.S. 55, 65,
Judge Opel interpreted the guidance of the Third Circuit to mean, conversely, that the doctrine would be applicable to paragraphs within subsection (b) because both paragraph (2) and (3) apply to cases filed by consumer debtors. Although
dicta
in
Perlin
may be understood as supporting this conclusion, I do not find the canon of negative implication to be helpful in this case. Clear guidance provided by the Supreme Court on the application of the canon demonstrates that the doctrine is inap-posite to an analysis of § 707(b)(2) and (b)(3). In
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Echazabal,
Section 707(b)(3) uses the expansive categories of “bad faith” and the “totality of the circumstances.” Neither of these terms have precise definitions and bankruptcy courts have develоped numerous formulations to define both terms. Further, each subsection addresses a different issue and there is no series of terms or things that “go hand in hand” in one subsection that is omitted in the other. Section 707(b)(2) creates a presumption of abuse for certain above median debtors and § 707(b)(3) provides for the dismissal of a case filed by any consumer debtor if thе case was filed in bad faith or if the totality of the circumstances of the debt- or’s financial situation demonstrates abuse. Thus, I find no basis to conclude that Congress intended to exclude consideration of a debtor’s ability to repay debts when considering a motion to dismiss under § 707(b)(3). Finding that it is inappropriate to apply the doctrine of negative implicаtion to an analysis of the text, I decline to reconsider my earlier holding that the existence of disposable income available to pay creditors may be consid *87 ered when examining the totality of the circumstances under § 707(b)(3).
B. Debtors’ Ability to Repay Unsecured Debt
Debtors do not dispute that their current expenses do not include a housing expense. Further they admit that they are surrеndering their interest in a Florida timeshare. By eliminating these two expenses Debtors have reduced their expenditures from $5192 per month to $3764. With these adjustments alone Debtors have $1240 in disposable income each month that could be committed to a Chapter 13 plan.
The UST also has asserted that it is an abuse of Chapter 7 for Debtors to expend $1110 pеr month in student loan and tuition payments for the benefit of their adult daughter rather than commit those funds to the payment of creditors. It is well established in this district that expenditures for the benefit of persons whom a debtor has no duty to support are not reasonable and necessary expenses.
In re Shores,
at *4 (citing
In re Miller,
When deciding a motion to dismiss under § 707(b)(3), I have analyzed the totality of the circumstances according to a list of factors developed by the Courts of Appeals for the Fourth and Sixth Circuits.
7
*88
See In re Shores,
An appropriate order will be entered.
Notes
. I have jurisdiction to hear this matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334. A motion to dismiss a Chapter 7 case is a core matter pursuant tо 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A). This Opinion constitutes findings of fact and conclusions of law required to be made by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure ("FRBP”) 7052, which is applicable to contested matters pursuant to FRBP 9014.
. Debtors’ Form 22 (the "Means Test”) states that their household consists of four (4) persons. On Schedule G, Debtors state that they are co-obligors on a loan to their son, Adam, whosе address is the same as Debtors. Although not explicitly stated in the stipulated facts, the Court assumes that Debtors two adult children live with them. Debtors' Means Test reports current monthly income of $5987.17, or $71,846.04 annually. The median annual income for a four-person household in Pennsylvania for cases filed between March 31, 2010 and October 31, 2010 was $77,590. Census Bureau Median Family Income By Family Size, justice.gov/ust, http:// www.justice.gov/ust/eo/bapcpa/20100315/bci_ data/median_income_table.htm (last visited March 21, 2011). Therefore, Debtors' annual income is below the median annual income for a four-person household in Pennsylvania.
.PNC Bank, National Association was granted relief from the automatic stay on August 13, 2010 with Debtors' concurrence.
. "The Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2005 asks the very fundamental question of whether repayment is possible by an individual. It is this simple: If repayment is possible, then he or she will be channeled into chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code which requires people to repay a portion of their debt as a precondition for limited debt cancellation.... This bill does this by providing for a means-tested way of steering people ... who can repay a portion of their debts away from chapter 7 bankruptcy." Eugene R. Wedoff, Means Testing in the New § 707(b), 79 Am. Bankr.L.J. 231, 231 (2005) (quoting Statement of Senator Charles Grassley, March 1, 2005, 151 Cong. Rec. S1856).
. Compare
In re Starling,
. The record is unclear as to whether the student loans listеd in Schedule F are obligations of one or both Debtors or whether they are obligations of Debtors' adult children. Therefore, I cannot determine with certainty whether the student loan debts listed on Schedule F would be included in a Chapter 13 plan.
. The nine factors that I have traditionally examined in cases under § 707(b)(3) are identical to the factors considered when considering whether the filing of a case constitutes substantial abuse of the prior version of § 707(b). These factors are as follows:
(1) whether the bankruptcy petition was filed because of sudden illness, calamity, disability, or unemployment; (2) whether the debtor made consumer purchases far in excess of his ability to repay; (3) whether the debtor’s proрosed family budget is excessive or unreasonable; (4) whether the debtor's schedules and statements of current income and expenditures reasonably and accurately reflect his true financial condition; (5) whether the bankruptcy petition was filed in bad faith; (6) whether the debtor engaged in eve of bankruptcy purchases; (7) whether the debtor enjoys а stable source of future income; (8) whether he is eligible for adjustment of his debts through chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code; and (9) whether the debtor’s ex *88 penses can be reduced significantly without depriving him of adequate food, clothing, shelter, and other necessities.
In re Miller,