* * * *

(4) Residents of the Virgin Islands.--In the case of an individual--

(A) who is a bona fide resident of the Virgin Islands at the close of the taxable year,

(B) who, on his return of income tax to the Virgin Islands, reports income from all sources and identifies the source of each item shown on such return, and

(C) who fully pays his tax liability referred to in section 934(a) to the Virgin Islands with respect to such income,

An individual who is a bona fide resident of the Virgin Islands and incurs income tax obligations to both the United States and the Virgin Islands may satisfy his reporting and payment 2010 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 47">*51 requirements by filing only with, and paying tax only to, the Virgin Islands if he satisfies each of the three requirements of section 932(c)(4). If the individual fails to meet any of these requirements, he must file a Federal income tax return with the Internal Revenue Service. See S. Rept. 100-445, at 315 (1988). Consequently, an individual failing to satisfy all three requirements of section 932(c)(4) may be required to file an income tax return and be liable for taxes to both the United States and the Virgin Islands.

To redetermine a Virgin Islands tax deficiency determined by the BIR, a Virgin Islands taxpayer may petition the U.S. District Court, District of the Virgin Islands, in the same manner as a U.S. taxpayer may petition this Court. Secs. 6212, 6213 (mirror code); V.I. Code Ann. tit. 33 sec. 943 (1994); see WIT Equip. Co. v. Dir., V.I. Bureau of Internal Revenue, 185 F. Supp. 2d 500">185 F. Supp. 2d 500, 185 F. Supp. 2d 500">510 (D.V.I. 2001). The U.S. District Court, District of the Virgin Islands, has "exclusive jurisdiction over * * * the income tax laws applicable to the Virgin Islands * * * except the ancillary laws relating to the income tax enacted by the legislature of the Virgin Islands." 48 U.S.C. sec. 1612(a) (2006).

The 2010 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 47">*52 sole issue before us is whether petitioner may interplead the Government of the Virgin Islands. In general, our Rules do not provide for interpleading a third party. In the absence of an express Rule, Rule 1(b) provides that the Court "may prescribe the procedure, giving particular weight to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to the extent that they are suitably adaptable to govern the matter at hand." See Intermountain Ins. Serv. of Vail, LLC v. Commissioner, 134 T.C. 211">134 T.C. 211, 134 T.C. 211">215 (2010); Estate of Proctor v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-208; see also Appleton v. Commissioner, 135 T.C. 461">135 T.C. 461, 2010 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 39">2010 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 39 (2010) (denying intervention by a third party).

135 T.C. 605">*609 Petitioner relies on rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure² which governs interpleading a third party in much of the Federal court system. Rule 22(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

Rule 22. Interpleader

(a) Grounds.

(1) By a Plaintiff. Persons with claims 2010 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 47">*53 that may expose a plaintiff to double or multiple liability may be joined as defendants and required to interplead. Joinder for interpleader is proper even though:

(A) the claims of the several claimants, or the titles on which their claims depend, lack a common origin or are adverse and independent rather than identical; or

(B) the plaintiff denies liability in whole or in part to any or all of the claimants.

Petitioner asserts that

The case at bar is the exact type of case in which this Court should exercise its discretion to interplead the Government of the * * * [Virgin Islands] under Rule 22(a)(1). That is because Respondent as the taxing authority for the United States Government has asserted that Petitioner is liable for unpaid taxes * * * based on the same items of income that the * * * [Virgin Islands] has already taxed and has already collected 135 T.C. 605">*610 from Petitioner. Consequently, Petitioner's income may be subject to double taxation, which by definition is a double liability. A double tax liability is a situation that Rule 22 seeks to address.

Petitioner further asserts 2010 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 47">*55 that (1) the United States and the Virgin Islands have "adverse and independent" claims under rule 22(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and (2) should respondent ultimately prevail in the case, petitioner would have a claim against the Virgin Islands for appropriate tax refunds. ³ Thus, petitioner posits that

Although, during the pendency of the instant litigation the potential claim against the * * * [Virgin Islands] may be in doubt (if Petitioner is determined to have been a bona fide * * * [Virgin Islands] resident or if the statute of limitations prevents Respondent from assessing against Petitioner, he will dismiss any outstanding actions against the * * * [Virgin Islands]), interpleading the * * * [Virgin Islands] Government is still appropriate because it will avoid multiple legal actions and relieving [sic] Petitioner from having to anticipate the strength of the * * * [Virgin Islands'] claims.

By moving to interplead 2010 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 47">*56 the Virgin Islands, petitioner in essence asks this Court to redetermine his Virgin Islands tax liability. We do not have jurisdiction to make that redetermination.

This Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and we may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly authorized by Congress. Sec. 7442; Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527">85 T.C. 527, 85 T.C. 527">529 (1985). We lack authority to enlarge upon that statutory jurisdiction, Breman v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61">66 T.C. 61, 66 T.C. 61">66 (1976), and petitioner's invocation of rule 22(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure cannot expand our jurisdiction, see, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 82 ("These rules do not extend or limit the jurisdiction of the district courts or the venue of actions in those courts."); 7 Wright et al., supra sec. 1710. As we noted in Estate of Forgey v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 142">115 T.C. 142, 115 T.C. 142">146 (2000), we have jurisdiction to redetermine deficiencies in Federal income, estate, gift, and certain excise taxes. See secs. 6211-6215; Rule 13. We also have jurisdiction over certain other Federal tax issues (e.g., section 6512(b) refund actions regarding overpayments determined by the Court in 135 T.C. 605">*611 certain circumstances; section 7436(a) determination of employment 2010 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 47">*57 status actions). In sum, we are limited to the adjudication of Federal tax matters; i.e., in this case, we may only redetermine the correct amounts of petitioner's Federal income tax liabilities for 2002, 2003, and 2004.

We have found no authority, and petitioner has cited none, which would permit us to redetermine petitioner's Virgin Islands tax liabilities or the disposition of moneys which petitioner has paid to the Virgin Islands. Should respondent ultimately prevail in this case, we would have no jurisdiction to (1) discharge petitioner from liabilities determined by the Government of the Virgin Islands; (2) direct the Virgin Islands to refund to petitioner the amount of taxes petitioner paid to the BIR; or (3) order the Virgin Islands to pay any moneys to the United States.

As noted supra p. 5, 48 U.S.C. sec. 1612(a) explicitly provides that the U.S. District Court, District of the Virgin Islands, is the sole court that may determine the correct amount of petitioner's Virgin Islands tax liabilities for 2002, 2003, and 2004. Petitioner would have to appear before that court to seek refunds from the Virgin Islands.

Consistent with the foregoing, petitioner's motion will be denied.

To 2010 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 47">*58 reflect the aforesaid,

An appropriate order will be issued.