Dogs as dependents? One woman’s suing the IRS to make it happen
An attorney filed a lawsuit in the Eastern District of New York, aiming to get the IRS to allow pets to be claimed as dependents. Amanda Reynolds, an lawyer licensed in New York and Utah, argued in the complaint first reported on by Forbes that the way dogs are currently classified — as property — does not reflect their actual roles in the household.
Reynolds said her nine-year-old dog, Finnegan Mary, who is also named as a plaintiff, is dependent on her for food, shelter, veterinary care, day care and boarding — with annual expenses that can top $5,000. With Finnegan not having her own income, Reynolds argues she satisfies the requirements dependents must currently meet — besides the one about being a human.
“While dogs are considered property, there is a rational basis to consider them as non-human companions where public policy espouses a fundamental appreciation for life, such as Finnegan’s, and, the pursuit of happiness, which precede dogs’ very existence,” Reynolds wrote. “For all intents and purposes, Finnegan is like a daughter, and is definitely a ‘dependent.’ While novel, this case is not frivolous or meritless and warrants serious consideration by this Honorable Court.”
In her complaint, Reynolds noted that taxpayers with “human dependents” can claim a child tax credit, earned income tax credit, dependent care credit and other benefits.
“Plaintiff’s dog Finnegan is categorically excluded from dependent status due solely to non-human classification,” the complaint states.
Reynolds said in an interview with Straight Arrow News that while the IRS is assessing fines to her as a taxpayer, “they’re also not taking into consideration all of my expenses and all of the things that I have associated that should be considered, including my dog.”
“The way that a society treats its animals is an indication of that society on its whole,” she said.
How likely is the case to succeed?
Magistrate Judge James M. Wicks recently granted a motion to stay discovery pending the IRS’ anticipated motion to dismiss the case.
Chad Cummings, an attorney and CPA at Cummings & Cummings Law in Florida, says the case “faces structural failure under existing federal tax law.”
“I expect the court to treat ‘dependent’ as a human category baked into the statute, not a policy choice the IRS can expand by guidance,” Cummings explained. “I also expect threshold procedural defenses to dominate, including sovereign immunity, jurisdictional limits on tax declaratory relief and refund suit prerequisites that force the taxpayer to pay, claim a refund and then sue.”
Steven Klitzner, a tax attorney based in Miami, Florida, told SAN he doesn’t see this case going beyond a motion to dismiss. It would potentially “open the floodgates to even more ridiculous claims and deductions,” he added.
“If you were able to have pets as dependents, and be able to make deductions, people would have 100 cats, or 100 guinea pigs or even goldfish,” Klitzner said. “You just can’t deduct something nice that you want — even if they become part of the family.”
Cummings said the suit is “not a realistic path to a binding tax rule change” and there’s a “hidden risk” of copycat filers creating a “compliance dragnet.”
“If taxpayers start listing pets as dependents, the IRS can respond with automated mismatch notices, audits and preparer investigations,” Cummings said. “The second-order consequence of any broad ‘pet dependent’ rule would be predictable fraud and administrative overcorrection. Congress would demand bright-line eligibility tests, caps and documentation such as licensing, microchip records and veterinary invoices, which would punish ordinary owners and still invite scheme promoters.”
Reynolds acknowledged to SAN that there is a question of where the line is drawn — but added that pets are “a life.”
“They’re separate and apart from other sorts of property,” she said. As far as the issue of people potentially claiming goldfish as dependents, she thinks “it’ll come down to the expenses, the type of life that we’re talking about.”
Do pet owners get any relief?
A 2023 Pew Research Center survey found that 97% of people who have pets consider them part of the family. So do pet owners get any tax relief?
Cummings says while pet tax relief already exists, it’s only through “narrow, fact-specific channels.” He advises clients that they can deduct service animal costs as medical expenses when the animal assists with a medical condition. This needs to be itemized by the taxpayer, and only if the costs are 7.5% of their adjusted gross income. Working animal costs can also be deducted if the pet serves a “bona fide trade or business purpose, such as herd protection or facility security,” and business use can be substantiated, Cummings added.
“The reality, though, is that most filers will use the standard deduction and therefore cannot itemize these expenses,” he said.
While there might not be as many options in terms of tax deductions, more and more employers are moving to offer benefits for bets, according to Gallagher’s 2025 Benchmarks Report. Pet insurance was offered by a third of employers in 2025, according to the report, an increase from the 23% that provided it in 2023, though it is “almost exclusively 100% employee- paid.” Training Magazine also notes that an “increasing number of companies” are giving employees pet benefits like health care, stipends and even pet-friendly office or remote work policies.
Millenials and Gen Z employees often rank pet benefits as a top offering, Tom Kelly, a health practice leader for Gallagher, told Employee Benefit News
“As more of them increasingly treat pets as family, employers are adapting their benefits to attract and retain this segment,” he said.
The post Dogs as dependents? One woman’s suing the IRS to make it happen appeared first on Straight Arrow News.
Ella Rae Greene, Editor In Chief
