Can Your Dog Be Claimed as a Dependent? A Legal Perspective
If you’ve ever glanced at your pet’s vet bills, grooming costs, and other expenses and thought, "This pet is practically my dependent," you're not alone. Notably, New York attorney Amanda Reynolds is attempting to substantiate that claim in a federal court.
In December 2025, Amanda Reynolds filed a unique lawsuit against the IRS, demanding that her eight-year-old golden retriever, Finnegan, be recognized as a dependent for tax purposes.
The case, while novel and seemingly fantastical, addresses a common taxpayer query: Are pet expenses deductible? If not, why?
Here’s a closer examination of the case, the statutory framework, and the limited instances where the IRS permits tax benefits related to animals.
Analyzing the Lawsuit: Can My Pet Be a Dependent?
Reynolds asserts that Finnegan fulfills the IRS’s criteria for a dependent by demonstrating:
He resides with her full-time,
Has no income, and
Is more than 50% financially supported by her, with expenditures exceeding $5,000 annually on essentials such as food, medical care, and daycare.
A national news outlet highlights Reynolds’s statement: “For all intents and purposes, Finnegan is akin to a daughter, definitely qualifying as a ‘dependent.’”
She further argues under constitutional grounds, asserting unequal treatment of similarly supported dependents based on "species" (Equal Protection) and asserting that the lack of acknowledgement constitutes wrongful "taking" (Fifth Amendment).
The Case’s Current Status
The case is lodged in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Presently, it is largely stalled.
A federal magistrate has ordered a stay on discovery (halting evidence collection) pending the IRS’s motion to dismiss.
The court order denotes the lawsuit's "novel yet pressing question" regarding the classification of domestic animals as tax dependents but also highlights significant challenges, citing the government’s view that the claims are "unmeritorious on their face" and unlikely to withstand a dismissal motion.
Summary: The suit is authentic, captures attention, but faces considerable skepticism regarding its success.
Understanding Why Pets Aren’t Dependents
The core issue for the lawsuit: the tax law delineates dependents as “individuals.”
Under Internal Revenue Code Section 152, dependents are defined as “qualifying children” or “qualifying relatives,” consistently using the term “individual” to mean human beings.
Therefore, IRS documentation does not offer an option to list a pet as a dependent. Dependents require a Social Security Number or similar identification, intertwining with benefits structured around familial and household relationships.
So, while Reynolds equates Finnegan’s situation with the dependency test (no earnings, cohabitation, financial support), the federal tax structure is not designed to acknowledge animals as "individual" dependents.
Existing Tax Benefits for Animals
Although routine pet expenses are generally non-deductible, there are exceptions. This section outlines practical tax guidance for pet-related deductions.
1) Service animals can qualify as medical deductions
For a certified service animal assisting with a disability, certain costs may count as medical expenses eligible for deduction with itemization.
The IRS clarifies that such expenses are deductible if itemized and surpass the specified AGI threshold. Therefore, expenses relating to acquiring and maintaining a service animal qualify as medical deductions directly pertinent to medical care.
Note: Emotional support animals generally do not meet the federal criteria for service animals; only animals trained to perform tasks that alleviate disability constraints qualify.
2) Business animals may qualify as business expenses
Under certain conditions, animals serve legitimate roles in businesses—consider:
a guard dog securing business property, or
animals actively employed in pest control.
In these scenarios, applicable expenditures may be categorized as typical and necessary business expenses, provided they are substantiated with thorough documentation and a bona fide business purpose.
This observation marks one of the select contexts where the IRS permits tax advantages for animals.
3) Foster animals may result in charitable deductions
Taxpayers fostering animals for sanctioned charities may deduct certain unreimbursed expenditures as charitable gifts—though rigid guidelines and documentation are required.
Final Thoughts for Tax Filers
This lawsuit taps into a relatable notion: pets often become family members for numerous Americans, and their associated costs are considerable. However, tax laws are driven by statutory definitions, not emotional bonds.
In conclusion:
Dogs and cats are not claimable as dependents on federal tax returns.
Usual pet costs (food, grooming, and common veterinary care) are typically personal and, thus, non-deductible.
Some unique expenses tied to animals may be deductible under specific conditions—such as service animals, certain business applications, and occasionally, foster-related charitable deductions.
The implications of the Reynolds case should be monitored—not due to potential issuance of dependent IDs for pets by the IRS, but as it highlights the increasing emotional and financial reliance on pets and the stark tax policy divide between "family" and "property." Additionally, it serves as a vital reminder: before assuming deductibility, verify the IRS's acknowledgment and limitations.
Want tax & accounting tips and insights?
Sign up for our newsletter.