MEMORANDUM DECISION

These cases present a predominant common issue, and are thus consolidated by the court’s own motion for purposes of this appeal. The common issue is: Did the bankruptcy court err in confirming the proposed Chapter 13 plans of the respective debtors when each of the plans made no provision for the payment of any portion of the debts owed to unsecured creditors?

It is the court’s conclusion that the bankruptcy court did commit error in confirming these plans, and accordingly the cases must be remanded to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings in conformance with this Memorandum Decision.

11 U.S.C. § 1325 (a) provides in pertinent part as follows, to wit:

A simple reading of the act would indicate that a 11 six provisions of the act must be met before a plan under this section can be confirmed. This reading is borne out by the following portion of Senate Report No. 95-989, [1978] U.S.Code Cong. & Adm.News, pp. 5787, 5928:

Hence, not only the plain meaning of the statute involved, but the clearly enunciated intent of Congress, is that all six provisions of § 1325 must be found by the bankruptcy judge to be satisfied prior to confirming any wage earner plan.

The debtor in each of these proceedings and amicus curiae argue that the intent of Congress is clearly otherwise. They contend that so far as the unsecured creditors are concerned, the court need only look at the plan and determine whether the unsecured creditors will receive as much as they would receive under an outright bankruptcy liquidation under Chapter 7 [ 11 U.S.C. § 1325 (aX4)]. The majority of the bankruptcy cases decided by bankruptcy judges in other districts, as well as the district court and circuit court cases which have been brought to the attention of this court have held otherwise.

The arguments advanced by the courts who have considered the matter include the following:

(1) That a plan that does not provide for any payment to unsecured creditors cannot qualify as having been proposed in good faith. Reduced to its barest essentials, such a plan simply is a disguised liquidation enabling the debtors to keep their nonexempt property as well as rewarding them with a more liberal discharge than would be available to them under a straight bankruptcy liquidation under Chapter 7.

(2) That Congress clearly intended that all of the six requirements of § 1325 be satisfied and that the good faith requirement of § 1325(a)(3) is not to be measured by the requirements of § 1325(a)(4).

In summary, all of the decisions cited agree that in order to become entitled to confirmation, each Chapter 13 plan must make some meaningful provision for payment to unsecured creditors; otherwise, the plan cannot be approved. The precise amount of such payment is to be fashioned by the bankruptcy judge in each case.

From the record on appeal, the court is unable to determine whether the bankruptcy court in the instant case ever considered what the ability of the petitioning debtor might be to make payments out of future earnings. The court suggests that the confirmation order in each of these cases may likewise be deficient in that regard.

Accordingly, the case is remanded to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings in accordance with this memorandum decision.

. In Re Howard (Bkrtcy.S.D.Cal.1980) 3 B.R. 75 , 5 B.C.D. 1375 ; In Re Campbell (Bkrtcy.S.D.Cal.1980) 3 B.R. 57 , 5 B.C.D. 1365 ; In Re Beaver (B krtcy.S.D.Cal.1980) 2 B.R. 337 , 5 B.C.D. 1285 ; In Re Iacovoni, et al. (Bkrtcy.D.Utah 1980) 2 B.R. 256 , 5 B.C.D. 1270 ; In Re Terry (8th Cir. 1980) Bankr.L.Rep. (CCH) 67,611; In Re Burrell, 6 B.R. 360 (Bkrtcy.N.D.Cal.1980).