Your Dog a Dependent, Fiscally Speaking?

A woman in New York has filed a lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service, arguing that her golden retriever should be classified as a dependent under US tax law. It might sound preposterous, but the case has cleared some preliminary legal hurdles.

Amanda Reynolds lives with her 8-year-old golden retriever, Finnegan Mary Reynolds, who is reliant on the human for food, shelter, and medical care, just as any child would be. As described in the court filing, Reynolds spends more than $5,000 annually on Finnegan’s care – food, housing, veterinary services, grooming, training, transportation, daycare and boarding.

Reynolds argues that Section 152 of the Internal Revenue Code should allow companion animals to qualify as dependents. She wants the law to recognize Finnegan – and all similarly housed dogs – as a non‑human dependent. It’s not a crazy claim, given evolving views on animal welfare and the legal status of nonhumans. On top of that there’s precedence: certain service animals already qualify for deductible medical expenses under existing IRS guidelines.

“While dogs are considered property,” the complaint states, “there is a rational basis to consider them as non-human companions where public policy espouses a fundamental appreciation for life and the pursuit of happiness… For all intents and purposes, Finnegan is like a daughter, and is definitely a ‘dependent.’”

The claims are novel, but not frivolous. The IRS has not yet filed a response, but a magistrate has granted a motion to stay discovery pending an anticipated motion by the agency to dismiss. And Amanda Reynolds is no crank. She is in fact a lawyer – licensed in New York and Utah – who focuses on tax and civil matters.

Photo credit: Perplexity.ai