A New York City attorney has filed a lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service, arguing that her dog should qualify as a dependent under US tax law. According to USA Today, Amanda Reynolds filed the lawsuit on June 19 in the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York, seeking permission to claim her 8-year-old golden retriever, Finnegan Mary Reynolds, as a non-human dependent on her federal tax return.
In the complaint, Reynolds states that her dog is “entirely dependent” on her for survival and meets the functional requirements outlined in Section 152 of the Internal Revenue Code, which defines who may be claimed as a dependent.
Costs behind the claim
Reynolds told the court she spends more than $5,000 a year caring for Finnegan, covering expenses such as food, housing, veterinary services, grooming, transportation, daycare, and boarding, according to USA Today and The US Sun.
Also Read: IRS tax bracket breakdown: Income categories, capital gains and other details
“For all intents and purposes, Finnegan is like a daughter, and is definitely a ‘dependent,’” the lawsuit states, as quoted by both outlets.
Why the IRS refuses
Under current IRS rules, animals are classified as property and cannot be claimed as dependents. Dependency status is typically limited to children, relatives, or other qualifying individuals who meet income, residency, and support requirements.
{{/usCountry}}Under current IRS rules, animals are classified as property and cannot be claimed as dependents. Dependency status is typically limited to children, relatives, or other qualifying individuals who meet income, residency, and support requirements.
{{/usCountry}}The IRS does allow certain service animals to be claimed as deductible medical expenses, but other pets receive no comparable tax recognition, a distinction Reynolds argues is inconsistent, according to The US Sun.
Reynolds claims the exclusion of non-human dependents violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by discriminating against taxpayers who provide substantial financial support to animals that are fully integrated into their households.
While acknowledging that the claim is “novel,” the lawsuit argues there is a rational basis for recognizing dogs as non-human companions entitled to limited civil recognition under tax law.
What the lawsuit is seeking
The filing asks the court to amend Section 152 of the tax code to allow dogs to qualify as non-human dependents. Alternatively, Reynolds is asking the IRS to establish criteria that would allow individual cases to be considered, according to USA Today.
The lawsuit also seeks to represent a broader class of dog owners whose spending on pet care meets or exceeds existing support thresholds but who receive no tax recognition.
The IRS has not yet responded publicly to the lawsuit.