Citing Ransom v. FIA Card Services, N.A ., __ U.S. __, 131 S. Ct. 716, 178 L. Ed. 2d 603 (Jan. 11, 2011), and Hamilton v. Lanning, __ U.S. __, 130 S. Ct. 2464, 177 L. Ed. 2d 23 (June 7, 2010), when actual expenses for ownership and operation of a car are less than IRS Local Standard allowance, actual cost controls, and debtors must commit the difference to unsecured creditors. “The court concludes that the trustee has rebutted the presumption by producing uncontroverted evidence that the debtor[s’] actual expense is less than the standard and that the actual expense is not anticipated to change during the term of the plan. . . . [D]ebtors . . . argue that only a ‘substantial change’ in the debtors’ circumstances would trigger a rebuttal of the presumption. However, the court concludes . . . that the debtors’ actual income and expenses are also relevant factors. . . . The debtor in Ransom had no ownership expense, but the debtors in the instant case do. The court views this distinction as one without a difference.”