Can Fido Be a Dependent? The IRS is Asked to Decide
If you've ever considered your furry friend's vet charges, grooming fees, day-care expenses, and top-tier kibble as part of your household budget and thought, “This creature is a member of my family,” you're not alone. Interestingly, a New York attorney is arguing just that in a federal court.
In December 2025, attorney Amanda Reynolds initiated a lawsuit against the IRS. She seeks to have her eight-year-old golden retriever, Finnegan, recognized as a legitimate dependent for federal tax purposes.
This unique case, while seeming humorous at first glance, addresses a pressing question many tax-payers ponder annually: Are pet-related expenses deductible? And if they aren't, what is the rationale behind this?
Here's an overview of the lawsuit, what existing tax law stipulates, and the rare circumstances under which the IRS permits tax benefits related to animals.
The Lawsuit: “My Dog Qualifies as a Dependent”
Reynolds asserts that Finnegan satisfies the IRS's criteria for dependent status because:
he resides with her full-time,
he has no income source, and
she covers more than half of his upkeep, tallying up to $5,000 annually for necessities like nourishment, healthcare, and doggy day-care.
In a national news report, Reynolds is quoted saying, “In essence, Finnegan is akin to a daughter and truly a ‘dependent’,” as reflected in the complaint.
Reynolds also raises constitutional challenges, arguing that current regulations unfairly distinguish dependents based on “species” (an Equal Protection argument) and that failure to acknowledge them as dependents constitutes improper “taking” (a Fifth Amendment argument).
Current Status of the Case
Currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, the case is temporarily halted.
A federal magistrate judge has issued a stay of discovery, pausing the evidence-gathering phase while the IRS prepares a dismissal motion.
In a court order, the judge articulated that while the lawsuit raises a “novel but critical question” about recognizing domestic animals as dependents per the tax code, significant legal barriers remain. The court indicates the claims are “unmeritorious on their face,” suggesting they're unlikely to withstand a dismissal.
In essence, this legal pursuit is active and attracting attention; however, success remains uncertain.
Why Pets Aren't Recognized as Dependents in Tax Law
Fundamentally, tax law's hurdle is its language: dependents are defined as “individuals.”
According to Internal Revenue Code Section 152, a dependent is categorized under “qualifying child” or “qualifying relative,” with “individual” consistently interpreted as a human being over the years.
This linguistic framework means IRS documentation and forms don't even account for pets as dependents. Dependents need Social Security numbers or taxpayer identification numbers, underpinning credits and deductions tailored around human familial and domestic connections.
Thus, despite Reynolds's assertion that Finnegan fulfills the functional criteria of a dependent (living arrangement, income, and support amount), federal tax definitions don't envisage animals as “individual” dependents.
Existing Tax Allowances for Animals
While routine pet expenses typically aren't deductible, there are notable exceptions your readers will undoubtedly find beneficial as it presents their practical tax options.
1) Service animals can qualify for medical deductions
If an animal is a trained service animal aiding a disability, associated costs may be deductible as medical expenses when you itemize deductions.
The IRS clarifies that such expenses are deductible if they surpass the corresponding AGI threshold. Expenses for acquiring, training, and maintaining a service animal can count as medical expenses, contingent on a direct medical care relation.
Important caveat: emotional support animals usually do not qualify as service animals under federal guidelines; service animals are specifically trained to perform disability-related tasks.
2) Business animals as deductible business expenses
In certain scenarios, an animal serves a genuine business function—examples include:
a guard dog safeguarding business premises, or
animals employed for pest control within a business environment.
In these situations, ongoing costs may be considered ordinary and necessary business expenses. (Proper documentation along with a valid business purpose is crucial.)
Highlighted as a rare category in your source doc, the IRS offers specific tax benefits for animals.
3) Fostering animals can open possibilities for charitable deductions
Taxpayers fostering animals for qualifying organizations might deduct specific unreimbursed expenses as charitable donations—again, stringent rules and documentation apply.
Key Takeaway for Taxpayers
The emotional essence of this lawsuit is unmistakable: pets are beloved companions for countless Americans, and expenses tied to them are palpable. Yet, tax regulations prioritize statutory definitions over emotions.
As it stands:
Dogs and cats cannot be claimed as dependents on a federal tax return.
Regular pet expenses (routine vet care, pet food, grooming for typical pets) are generally personal and non-deductible.
Potential deductions for animal costs exist only under narrow criteria—for service animals, specific business roles, and some fostering charitable expenses.
As for Reynolds's case, it's worth observing—not due to an expected IRS policy reversal making pets dependents, but because it highlights the contrast between how families now rely on pets and the strict delineation tax policy maintains between “family” and “property.”
Above all, this serves as a gentle reminder: before assuming a deductible status of an expense, check the IRS's actual stance.
Want tax & accounting tips and insights?
Sign up for our newsletter.