No, not Mr.Keen, the hero of the eponymous radio (and later television) detective series of the late 1930s through the 1950s, but Judge David Gustafson, the Obliging Judge.

See my blogposts “We’ll Come To You”, 9/18/12, “We’ll Come To You–Part Deux”, 10/22/12, and “A Solicitous Judge”, 11/8/12.

Today (3/12/13), we have another illustration of Judge Gustafson’s unending quest for missing petitioners, Satyendra K. & Madhu K. Singh, Docket No. 7386-12, filed 3/12/13.

In fact, to track down SatMad, Judge Gustafson takes his cue from Fred and Ginger’s 1936 classic Follow the Fleet.

SatMad petition from a SNOD dated September 2 with a petition postmarked the following February 16, or 167 days after. Now SatMad’s only mailing address is an FPO number, which means United States Navy, and that’s outside the US of A, so the magic 150-day outside date would prevail, except SatMad is still late.

But Judge Gustafson sets date for trial, and makes signal to the Fleet, telling SatMad to shape up or ship out. But Judge Gustafson’s letter comes back “undeliverable”.

No way dismayed, IRS moves to dismiss. “The motion shows that an identical NOD was sent to each of the Singhs, that they received the NODs at a post office in Bahrain, and that in September 2011 they each signed a postal receipt for the NOD.” Order, p. 1 (Note- Judge Gustafson means “SNOD” when he says “NOD”).

So Judge Gustafson orders SatMad to respond, reply or haul down the ensign.

Alas, “(T)he Court received no response. Rather, the copy of the order served on the Singhs (at their FPO address) was returned by the U.S. Postal Service, apparently after an attempt to forward it to an address in Hawaii. By order dated February 11, 2013 (and served on the Singhs at their FPO address and at the Hawaii address), the Court ordered that it would hear argument on respondent’s motion to dismiss at or soon after the time this case was called from the calendar on March 4, 2013, in Washington, D.C. On March 4,2013, there was no appearance by or on behalf of the Singhs.” Order, p. 2.

Bereft of petitioners, notwithstanding his epistolary voyaging worthy of Sinbad or the Flying Dutchman, Judge Gustafson reluctantly abandons the stern chase after the elusive SatMad. “It is most unfortunate that the Court must enter decision in this case without any response or input from the Singhs. However, a petitioner is required to keep the Court informed of any change in his address, see Rule 21(b)(4); and the Singhs have not done so. A petitioner may not, by withholding contact information, delay indefinitely the redetermination and assessment of a deficiency against him. Rather, we must resolve the case.” Order, p. 2.

So Judge Gustafson, with a heavy heart, deep-sixes SatMad’s petition.

There was a bunch of T. C. Memos today (3/12/13), but only one worth noting. A reprise of my blogpost “The $250 Misunderstanding”, 6/3/11, this one involved ferrets and not feral cats. But the lady doing the ferreting fails the Section 170(f)(8)(A) test, even though she is the sole operating officer of the ferret rescuers and has bank statements to show what and when she gave. Her argument that she gave herself nothing fails for want of contemporaneous documentation, just like Jan Elizabeth Van Dusen, the feral catwoman.

So catpeople and ferreters (and others charitably inclined), take a hint from Joe Young and Fred E. Ahlert’s 1935 hit, and sit right down and write yourself a letter.

Oh yes, the case is Jolene M. Villareale, 2013 T. C. Memo. 74, filed 3/12/13, Judge Vasquez.