Learning Center
We keep you up-to-date on the latest tax changes and news in the industry.
Can Dogs Be Tax Dependents? A Legal Challenge Unfolds
If you've ever tallied up the costs of veterinary care, grooming, and specialty food for your pet and jokingly thought, “This furball should be tax-deductible,” you are not alone. Now, a bold legal argument is being made in federal court to turn that jest into reality.
In December 2025, New York attorney Amanda Reynolds filed a lawsuit against the IRS seeking recognition of her eight-year-old golden retriever, Finnegan, as a legal dependent under federal tax laws.
While the case seems eccentric, it underscores a common query among taxpayers: Can pet-related expenses qualify for tax deductions? If not, why?
This article delves into the lawsuit specifics, current tax laws, and existing scenarios where the IRS acknowledges tax benefits related to animals.
The Legal Argument: "My Dog Fulfills Dependency Criteria"
Reynolds claims Finnegan fulfills IRS dependency requirements by:
living with her full-time,
being without income, and
having more than half of his expenses (over $5,000 annually for food, healthcare, and care services) covered by her.
As reported by national news media, Reynolds argues, “Finnegan is like a daughter, hence a 'dependent,'” within her case.
She further incorporates constitutional claims, asserting existing rules discriminatorily differentiate dependents by "species," violating Equal Protection, and the absence of tax recognition effectively presents an improper "taking" under the Fifth Amendment.
The Current Status of the Case
The lawsuit is present in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, currently awaiting progression.
A federal magistrate has approved a motion to stay discovery (postponing evidence exchange) while the IRS prepares to seek a dismissal.
The court's written decision describes the case as presenting a “novel yet pressing question” regarding if and how domestic animal dependents should be classified under the tax code. However, the court also emphasizes the set of legal barriers ahead, indicating the claims seem “lacking in merit” and likely to fail if contested.
In summary: the lawsuit is legitimate, ongoing, and getting noticed, though the court remains dubious of its potential success.
Understanding why Pets Aren’t Dependents Under Tax Law
The primary hindrance to the lawsuit is that tax law narrowly defines dependents as “individuals.”
According to the Internal Revenue Code Section 152, dependents are identified as “qualifying children” or “qualifying relatives,” yet consistently categorized under the term “individual”, which historically denotes a human being.
Thus, IRS documentation lacks a mechanism for including pets as dependents. Dependents must possess Social Security or taxpayer identification numbers, and related credits and deductions pertain specifically to human familial and household entwinements.
Although Reynolds posits Finnegan's case satisfies a functional dependency test (residing with and sustained by her), federal tax law does not recognize animals as dependent "individuals."
Existing Tax Benefits for Animals
While routine pet expenses are commonly not deductible, select situations permit exceptions. This portion holds particular value for readers, offering pertinent tax guidelines.
1) Service Animals may Qualify as Medical Expense Deductions
Expenses associated with a service animal assisting with disabilities may be considered medical expenses upon itemizing deductions.
The IRS specifies that deductible medical costs require exceeding the AGI threshold through itemization. In this structure, expenses for procuring, training, and maintaining service animals may be deemed medical expenses directly tied to medical care.
Reader Advisory: emotional support animals generally do not qualify as service animals under federal standards; service animals are meticulously trained to perform tasks concerning disabilities.
2) Animals Used for Business Purposes can be Deductible as Business Expenses
Under particular conditions, animals integrated into a legitimate business can be considered—for example:
a guard dog protecting commercial property, or
animals contributing to pest control in business contexts.
In these instances, applicable ongoing costs may be recognized as ordinary necessary business expenses (documentation and explicit business justification are pivotal).
3) Foster Animals may Correlate with Charitable Deductions
Taxpayers who foster animals for certified organizations might deduct certain unreimbursed expenses as charitable contributions—strict rules and records apply.
The Taxpayer’s Takeaway
This lawsuit offers a compelling narrative: For millions, pets are family, and associated costs are substantial. Yet tax law is based on statutory criteria, not sentiment.
As it stands:
You cannot claim pets as dependents on federal tax returns.
Normal pet expenses (for household animals' food, grooming, vet care) are generally personal and nondeductible.
Certain pet-related costs could be deductible in rare circumstances—pertaining to service animals, certain business animals, or foster-related charitable cases.
While the Reynolds case might not herald a policy shift enabling dependent IDs for dogs, it highlights the rising trend of relying on pets both emotionally and financially, emphasizing a stark tax policy distinction between "family" and "property."
As always, before presuming something's deductible, verifying its qualification under IRS guidelines is pivotal.
Want our best tax and accounting tips and insights delivered to your inbox?
Sign up for our newsletter.