Attorney Challenges IRS for Pet Dependency Deduction
For those reviewing expenses such as annual veterinary bills, grooming fees, pet daycare costs, and specialty food invoices, the thought may cross your mind, “My pet functions like a dependent in my household.” You are not alone. Recently, one attorney has taken this belief to the judicial level.
In December 2025, New York attorney Amanda Reynolds initiated a lawsuit against the IRS, urging recognition of her eight-year-old golden retriever, Finnegan, as a legitimate dependent for federal tax purposes.
The case, while unconventional, raises a question posed by many taxpayers each year: Are any pet expenses actually deductible? If not, what are the reasons?
This article delves into the proceedings of the case, the current tax law interpretations, and the constrained scenarios where the IRS acknowledges tax benefits concerning animals.
The Case: Legal Recognition of a Canine Dependent
In her legal filings, Reynolds asserts that Finnegan fulfills the IRS’s dependent criteria because:
he resides full-time in her home,
he generates no income, and
she covers more than half of his maintenance costs, involving expenses upwards of $5,000 annually on essentials such as nutrition, healthcare, and daycare.
A nationally covered report cites Reynolds, “For all intents and purposes, Finnegan is akin to a child, hence a ‘dependent,’” in her lawsuit.
Reynolds further leverages constitutional arguments, challenging current regulations that differentially treat dependents based on their “species” (an Equal Protection contention) and arguing that lack of tax recognition equates to an unauthorized “taking” (Fifth Amendment claim).
Current Status of the Lawsuit
The lawsuit is being examined by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, currently experiencing a temporary halt.
An order to pause discovery, or pausing the evidence exchange process, was approved while the IRS prepares its motion to dismiss.
The court's documentation outlines the case’s interrogation of a “novel but urgent inquiry” about categorizing domestic companion animals as dependents under tax regulations. However, the court also indicates substantial obstacles ahead, stressing the government’s position that the claims appear “facially unmeritorious” and unlikely to prevail against a dismissal motion.
In essence, this lawsuit hasn't just captured public attention but also faces strong judicial skepticism regarding its success.
Understanding Why Pets Are Not Dependents Under Federal Tax Law
The primary challenge for this case rests in how tax laws define dependents as “individuals.”
According to Internal Revenue Code Section 152, a dependent is either a “qualifying child” or “qualifying relative,” and the statute consistently employs the term “individual” historically interpreted as a human entity.
This classification precludes IRS forms and guidelines from addressing pets as dependents. Dependents require Social Security numbers or other taxpayer identifiers, with dependent-related benefits—credits and deductions—crafted around human-family and household interrelations.
Though Reynolds argues that Finnegan fits the functional dependency assessment (zero income, co-residency, financial support from her), the federal tax framework is not designed to classify animals as dependent “individuals.”
Available Tax Benefits for Animals
Even if typical pet expenses are non-deductible, exceptions exist that taxpayers may consider.
1) Medical Deductions for Service Animals
If an animal serves as a trained service animal aiding with disability, related expenses can be regarded as medical costs upon itemizing deductions.
The IRS notes that such medical costs become deductible if one itemizes and if they surpass the specific AGI threshold, especially when linked to direct medical care maintenance for service animals.
Critical Note for Taxpayers: Emotional support animals are not typically classified as service animals under federal directives; service animals are specifically trained for disability-related tasks.
2) Deductible Business Expenses for Business Animals
Animals involved in legitimate commerce—such as:
a guard dog for business security, or
creatures used in pest control operations,
may have associated costs deductable as necessary business expenses. (Documentedproof of both expenditure and a legitimate business purpose is mandatory.)
3) Charitable Deductions Tied to Foster Animals
Taxpayers fostering animals through qualified organizations may qualify for deductions on certain unreimbursed costs under charitable donation rules, provided strict records are maintained.
Final Takeaway for Taxpayers
The lawsuit’s emotional appeal is palpable: pets are integral to countless American families, with accompanying costs. However, tax legislation prioritizes defined statutory parameters over emotional factors.
For now:
Pets cannot be claimed as dependents on federal tax returns.
Standard pet costs (like food, grooming, and routine care) are deemed personal expenses and generally not deductible.
Some animal-related expenses may be deductible under narrow conditions—such as, service animals, select business animals, or charitable deductions related to foster care.
The Reynolds case warrants monitoring, not because of imminent changes to IRS regulations for pet dependents, but it emphasizes the growing role of pets in households and the disconnect between current tax policies and modern family interpretations.
Ultimately, it reiterates an essential reminder: before presuming something should be deductible, ensure it aligns with established IRS guidelines and interpretations.
Want our best tax and accounting tips and insights delivered to your inbox?
Sign up for our newsletter.