real-world difference between finding the guidelines incorporated and finding it appropriate to consult them escapes me, since I can imagine no basis for consulting them unless Congress meant them to be consulted, which would mean they are incorporated." Scalia further observed that the CFS were compiled for a different purpose. "[T]he fact that portions of the Local Standards are to be disregarded for revenue-collection purposes says nothing about whether they are to be disregarded for purposes of Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code." Regarding the Court's argument that its interpretation of the word "applicable" was necessary to give the whole statute meaning, Scalia countered that "the canon against superfluity is not a canon against verbosity." In his view, the most reasonable meaning of the statutory language "according to the applicable provisions of the attached table" was simply "according to the attached table," and just because Congress used unnecessarily prolix language did not mean it was necessary for the Court to import extra meaning to the extra words. If Congress had intended the meaning the Court construed, Scalia thought it would have been "more natural [for the statute] to say 'monthly expense amounts specified under the National Standards and Local Standards, if applicable.'" Though the Court seemed most concerned that a debtor without actual ownership costs would nevertheless be able to withhold income from repayment on that basis, Scalia believed that such an overallowance was inevitable with a standardized formula like the means test. "Our job, it seems to me, is not to eliminate or reduce those oddities, but to give the formula Congress adopted its fairest meaning." See also 2010 term United States Supreme Court opinions of Elena Kagan 2010 term United States Supreme Court opinions of Antonin Scalia References Further reading . External links Full text of the Court's opinion Briefs Brief for Respondent FIA Card Services, N.A. Brief of Amicus Curiae National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys in Support of Petitioner Urging Reversal Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Respondent Brief of Amicus Curiae G. Eric Brunstad, Jr. in Support of Respondent United States Supreme Court cases United States bankruptcy case law 2011 in United States case law United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court