Forbes
Pets may run many human households, but when tax season comes, they don’t count—no matter how dependent on you they are. A lawsuit filed by Amanda Reynolds seeks to change that.
Amanda Reynolds, an attorney licensed in New York and Utah who focuses largely on civil litigation insurance defense, recently filed a complaint in the Eastern District of New York, together with Finnegan Mary Reynolds. The catch? Finnegan is Amanda’s dog.
Background and Facts
Reynolds says that Finnegan, her eight-year-old golden retriever, is entirely dependent on her for food, shelter, medical care, training, transportation, and daily living. Finnegan has no independent income, resides exclusively with her, and has annual expenses exceeding $5,000. That means, Reynolds argues, that Finnegan satisfies every meaningful element of dependency recognized under section 152 of the Internal Revenue Code—except for being human. As a result, Reynolds has asked the court to determine whether pets can be recognized as non-human dependents under federal tax law.
According to the complaint, while dogs are legally classified as property, that does not fully reflect their role within families and households. Reynolds says that Finnegan’s care responsibilities mirror, and sometimes surpass, those of human dependents. Reynolds writes that “For all intents and purposes, Finnegan is like a daughter, and is definitely a ‘dependent’.”
Despite this, Reynolds notes, the tax code doesn’t allow relief for taxpayers who shoulder the financial burden of companion animals, even though it provides various credits and deductions—such as the Child Tax Credit, Dependent Care Credit, and Earned Income Tax Credit—for human dependents.
Reynolds claims this results in an arbitrary and unfair tax burden since taxpayers who provide financial support for human dependents get the benefit of tax breaks, while dog owners who provide similar levels of care receive none. This unequal treatment, she says, lacks a rational basis, especially considering the IRS’s own recognition that some animals—specifically, service dogs—may qualify for tax advantages. Reynolds argues that, from a financial standpoint, there is no real difference between service animals and companion animals.
