Learning Center
New Frontiers: Claiming Your Pet as a Tax Dependent
Pet owners, particularly those who are financially meticulous, have surely pondered the possibility—these expenses amount to much more than just companionship. One dedicated attorney is challenging the norm by arguing precisely this in a legal battle against the IRS.
In December 2025, New York attorney Amanda Reynolds took a unique step by filing a suit against the IRS. She aims to officially recognize her beloved eight-year-old golden retriever, Finnegan, as a dependent for tax purposes.
The case might seem eccentric or even unorthodox, but it tackles a question rooted in practical reality: Are pet-related expenses ever tax-deductible? If not, what justifies this gap?
Here’s a deep dive into the case specifics, the tax regulations at play, and where the IRS stands on tax reimbursements linked to animals.
The Lawsuit: Validating a Canine as a Dependent
Attorney Reynolds' legal stance is fascinating. She claims Finnegan fulfills IRS dependent criteria by:
residing with her continuously,
lacking personal income, and
being recipient of more than half of his living cost (harboring over $5,000 annually for essentials like food, health, and boarding).
As detailed in a national report, Reynolds states, “For all intents and purposes, Finnegan is like a daughter, and qualifies as a ‘dependent,’” in her filing.
Her argument stretches into constitutional territory, alleging that current tax rules unjustly differentiate dependent treatment based on "species"—an Equal Protection claim—and contending that the absence of tax recognition equates to legal "taking" under the Fifth Amendment.
Case Status Update
Currently, the lawsuit advances in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, albeit with proceedings on hold. A federal magistrate judge approved a motion to stay discovery, effectively pausing evidence exchange as the IRS considers filing for dismissal.
The court order notes that the case raises a “novel but urgent question” regarding the classification of domestic animals as “dependents” under tax law, yet acknowledges significant hurdles. The judges have highlighted that the initial claims appear “unmeritorious on their face,” casting doubt on their viability.
In essence, the lawsuit is both intriguing and unfolding, drawing public interest. However, judicial skepticism looms over its potential success.
Tax Code Standpoint on Pets as Dependents
The crux of the issue lies in statutory definitions—the tax code categorizes dependents strictly as “individuals”.
Per Internal Revenue Code Section 152, a dependent is either a “qualifying child” or a “qualifying relative,” with the term “individual” historically implying humans.
This distinction prevents pets from appearing on IRS forms as dependents. Dependents necessitate Social Security or taxpayer identification numbers, with tax benefits designed around human familial structures.
While Reynolds argues that Finnegan meets the functional dependency criteria (no income, cohabitation, financial support), the tax laws are not structured to regard animals as dependent “individuals.”
Existing Tax Benefits for Animals
Although routine pet expenditures are generally non-deductible, noteworthy exceptions offer some relief. This adds a practical layer to taxpayer guidance.
1) Service animals qualify for medical expense deductions
Costs incurred by trained service animals assisting disabilities can be deemed as medical expenses upon itemizing deductions.
The IRS outlines that when expenses surpass applicable AGI thresholds, costs for service animals related to health care can be deductible.
Key distinction: Emotional support animals typically do not meet service animal criteria under federal standards; only animals trained for specific disabilities qualify.
2) Business-related animals may incur deductible expenses
In applicable situations, animals that fulfill business roles—such as:
a guard dog protecting business property, or
animals engaged in pest control within a commercial environment.
These scenarios justify certain recurring costs as standard business expenditures, contingent on documentation and valid business rationale.
Your document flags this as a restricted category warranting tax concessions associated with animals.
3) Fostering animals may result in charitable deductions
Taxpayers fostering animals for qualified entities may be eligible for deductions on unreimbursed expenses as charitable contributions—accompanied by stringent guidelines and necessary documentation.
Final Thoughts for Taxpayers
The lawsuit resonates with a tangible emotional narrative: pets constitute family for countless Americans, posing genuine financial commitments. Nevertheless, tax legislation is rooted in legal specifics, not emotions.
Presently:
Pets like dogs and cats cannot be claimed as dependents on federal tax returns.
Typical pet costs (such as food, grooming, and standard vet care) remain personal, non-deductible expenses.
Select animal-related costs could be deductible in rare circumstances—relating to service animals, business usage, and certain foster-based charitable contributions.
While Reynolds' case warrants attention, not due to an anticipated IRS transformation regarding pet dependents, but because it highlights the evolving dynamic of pets as both emotional and financial anchors, while tax policy distinctly separates “family” from “property.”
Above all, taxpayers are reminded: before assuming a deduction is warranted, consult what the IRS precisely recognizes and excludes.