The lawsuit argues that animals are completely dependent on their owners just as children are dependent on their parents and alleges that the current law violates the principle of equality by allowing deductions for expenses for assistance animals.
More and more people see their pets as members of the family. An American lawyer believes it is time for the tax system to recognize this emotional bond and decided to sue the tax authorities for their refusal to recognize animals as dependents.
Amanda Reynolds, an attorney licensed in New York and Utah, filed a lawsuit against the IRS, arguing that her dog should qualify as a dependent under US tax law.
The case, reported by , revolves around Finnegan Mary Reynolds, an eight-year-old golden retriever. Reynolds claims that his dog meets almost all the practical criteria used to define an addict, except for one crucial factor: Finnegan is not human. Under current rules, pets are classified as propertysimilar to household assets, and therefore are not eligible for dependent-related tax credits or deductions.
In her lawsuit, Reynolds argues that Finnegan depends entirely on her for food, shelter, medical care, transportation and training. The dog has no income, lives with them full time and costs over $5000 a year to maintain. Reynolds argues that, if these circumstances applied to a person instead of an animal, they would already be entitled to tax benefits.
The court case reflects broader cultural changes regarding pet ownership. Surveys from the Pew Research Center show that nearly all pet owners in the U.S. consider their animals part of the family. Reynolds argues that tax legislation has not kept up with this reality, Treating pets as disposable property rather than dependents who require long-term financial support.
While the lawsuit may seem like an attempt to equate dogs with children, Reynolds’ legal argument is more specific. The lawyer points to the existing provisions of the North American Tax Authorities that allow limited tax benefits for assistance animalsclaiming that there is no meaningful financial distinction between caring for a service dog and a companion animal. Based on this, Reynolds argues that excluding pet owners from tax relief is arbitrary.
The lawsuit goes further, claiming that the current tax structure violates the constitutional principles of equality under the law and constitutes an unfair financial burden on pet owners. Reynolds even suggests that pets should receive a kind of “quasi-citizenship” for tax purposes, allowing owners to claim them as dependents.
Legal experts remain skeptical about the case’s chances of success. U.S. tax law clearly defines dependents as human beings, and courts have historically accepted the decisions of Congress about such definitions. Still, the court case highlights growing tensions between evolving social norms and entrenched legal structures.
