The Unconventional Fight to Claim a Dog as a Dependent: A Tax Dilemma
If you've ever sifted through your pet-related expenses—veterinarian bills, grooming, specialized food—and whimsically thought, "This pet feels more like a dependent than anything else," you're in good company. A remarkable legal battle is underway aiming to acknowledge this sentiment at a federal level.
In December 2025, New York attorney Amanda Reynolds launched a groundbreaking lawsuit against the IRS. The lawsuit seeks recognition of her beloved eight-year-old golden retriever, Finnegan, as a tax-deductible dependent.
While the case skirts the edge of believability, it underscores a sincere question pondered by taxpaying pet owners annually: Are any pet-related expenses deductible? And if not, what is the rationale?
The following discussion unpacks the legal proceedings of this peculiar case, outlines pertinent tax laws, and identifies limited instances in which the IRS permits certain animal-related tax deductions.
The Legal Challenge: "My Dog Qualifies as a Dependent"
In her legal filings, Reynolds argues that Finnegan fulfills IRS requirements for dependents because he:
Resides with her full-time,
Earns no income, and
Relies on her for support (her costs exceed $5,000 annually on necessities like food, medical care, and daycare).
A national news report highlights a statement from Reynolds: "For all intents and purposes, Finnegan resembles a daughter and is certainly a 'dependent,'" she claims in her lawsuit.
Her arguments extend to constitutional grounds, asserting that existing rules unjustifiably differentiate between dependents based on "species" (an Equal Protection claim) and that this omission of tax relief equates to a wrongful "taking" (a Fifth Amendment concern).
Current Status of the Case
The lawsuit has been lodged in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. However, proceedings are currently stalled.
A federal magistrate has approved a stay of discovery (essentially halting the exchange of evidentiary material) as the IRS drafts a dismissal motion.
In an official court opinion, the presiding judge acknowledges the lawsuit's introduction of a "novel yet pressing question"—whether domestic pets ought to qualify as "dependents" in the tax code. Nevertheless, the ruling points out potential challenges, remarking that the arguments appear "unmeritorious on their face" and may not withstand dismissal.
In summary: the lawsuit is ongoing and gaining traction, yet its success is uncertain given judicial skepticism.
The Tax Code: Pets and Dependents
The crux of the lawsuit's dilemma is anchored in tax law, which narrowly defines dependents as "individuals."
According to Internal Revenue Code Section 152, a dependent must be a "qualifying child" or "qualifying relative." The word "individual", historically, signifies a human entity.
This interpretation explains why IRS documentation and procedures lack any provisions for claiming pets as dependents. Dependents require Social Security or taxpayer identification numbers, and their respective tax benefits—credits and deductions—hinge on human familial and household connections.
Though Reynolds posits that Finnegan meets the functional dependency prerequisites (by lacking income, cohabiting with her, and being financially supported by her), the tax code simply does not perceive animals as "individual" dependents.
Potential Tax Advantages for Animal-Related Costs
Though routine pet costs are typically non-deductible, noteworthy exceptions do exist, offering potential avenues for tax savings, heralding practical tax guidance for readers.
1) Medical Deductions for Service Animals
When an animal is a trained service animal assisting a person with disabilities, associated expenses can qualify as medical expenses if itemized deductions surpass the AGI threshold.
The IRS notes that such costs—pertaining to acquisition, training, and upkeep—are deductible when directly connected to medical necessity.
Critical Detail for Readers: Emotional support animals do not traditionally fall under the federal "service animal" classification; service animals undergo specialized training for disability-related tasks.
2) Business Deductions for Animals
In specific scenarios, an animal contributes to a verifiable trade or business—consider:
a guard dog deployed for business property protection, or
animals employed for pest control operations.
Relevant ongoing expenses may be deemed ordinary and necessary business deductions (robust documentation and genuine business purposes are imperative).
3) Charitable Deductions for Fostering Animals
Taxpayers fostering animals for bona fide organizations might deduct certain unreimbursed expenses as charitable contributions, albeit within stringent compliance parameters.
The Taxpayer Takeaway
This lawsuit resonates on emotional grounds: for countless Americans, pets constitute family, and the associated costs are substantial. Yet, tax law hinges on precise definitions, not sentimentality.
Currently:
Pets cannot be claimed as dependents on federal tax returns.
Common pet expenses (nutrition, grooming, vet services for average pets) are predominantly personal and non-deductible.
Tax-deductible animal expenses are narrowly confined to service animals, particular business-related animals, and occasionally, foster contributions.
The unfolding story of the Reynolds case warrants attention—not because the IRS is poised to allocate dependent IDs for dogs like Finnegan, but because it highlights the growing economic and emotional reliance on pets in households and how existing tax policies exclude "family" status for pets.
And remember, fascinating though these developments may be, it underscores the importance of confirming IRS-recognized deductions before assuming any are eligible.
Want tax & accounting tips and insights?
Sign up for our newsletter.