New York Attorney Asks Federal Court to Decide if a Dog Can Be a Tax Dependent
A New York attorney has taken an unusual legal fight to federal court, asking a judge to determine whether a dog can qualify as a dependent under the U.S. tax code. The lawsuit, filed in the Eastern District of New York, challenges long standing federal rules that classify pets as property rather than family members, despite how many Americans actually live.
Amanda Reynolds, an attorney licensed in New York and Utah, filed the complaint alongside her eight year old golden retriever, Finnegan Mary Reynolds. In the filing, Reynolds argues that her dog meets nearly every requirement of dependency under Section 152 of the Internal Revenue Code, except for being human. Finnegan relies entirely on her for food, shelter, veterinary care, training, transportation, and daily living needs. He has no independent income and lives exclusively in her household. Reynolds estimates that his annual care costs exceed $5,000.
In the complaint, Reynolds describes Finnegan as being like a daughter in every meaningful way. She argues that federal tax law has failed to keep pace with modern family structures, pointing to data showing that roughly 94 million U.S. households own pets and that the vast majority of owners consider them members of the family. Despite that reality, pets remain legally classified as property and are excluded from dependency based tax benefits.
Reynolds contends this creates an unfair financial burden. The tax code provides credits and deductions for those who support human dependents, including the Child Tax Credit and the Credit for Other Dependents, but offers no comparable relief for people who shoulder similar financial responsibility for companion animals. She also notes that the IRS allows certain deductions related to service animals, arguing there is no meaningful financial distinction when it comes to the cost of care.
The lawsuit also raises constitutional claims. Reynolds argues that treating taxpayers differently based solely on whether their dependents are human violates equal protection principles. She further asserts a Fifth Amendment takings claim, arguing that denying tax relief for pet care effectively results in higher taxes without compensation.
The court, however, has already expressed skepticism. Earlier this month, U.S. Magistrate Judge James M. Wicks granted a request to pause discovery while the IRS prepares a motion to dismiss. In his ruling, he noted that the government made a substantial showing that the complaint is unlikely to survive. The IRS cited several issues, including lack of standing, improper service, and failure to state a valid legal claim.
The judge also pointed out that Reynolds did not allege she attempted to claim her dog as a dependent or that she suffered a concrete injury as a result. He highlighted additional legal hurdles common in tax cases, including federal laws that generally prevent courts from issuing rulings related to tax assessment and collection.
For now, federal tax rules remain unchanged. Dogs like Finnegan are still not eligible to be listed as dependents, no matter how central they are to the families who care for them.
Click the video below to watch the full story:
The post Woman Is Suing the IRS To Claim Dog As Independent On Taxes appeared first on iHeartDogs.com.