Amanda Reynolds, an attorney licensed to practice law in New York and Utah, filed a case in the Eastern District of New York requesting the IRS to treat her golden retriever, Finnegan Mary Reynolds as a tax dependent as she satisfies all the IRC Section 152 requirements, but happens not to be a human being. The suit seeks to dispute treatment of pets as property, and attain dependency status to deductions on pets annual care expenses of over 5,000 dollars and credits such as Child Tax Credit. Reynolds asserts Equal Protection and Takings Clause violations, including differences in which service animals receive breaks but companions do not, among 94 million American households with pets where there is unequal taxation.
Lawsuit Core Arguments
Reynolds claims that Finnegan is completely dependent on her, having no income, no place to stay, no medical treatment, etc., just as human dependents do.
– Amended reading of 26 U.S.C.4152 to include non-human dependents.
– Requires IRS to develop requirements to tax companion animals.
– wants injunction of blanket exclusions and attorney expenses.
It was filed pro se and has Finnegan co-plaintiff, and aims at classes of dog owners.
Court and IRS Procedural Motions
Magistrate Judge James M. Wicks held discovery pending IRS dismissal motion, on the grounds of weak standing and statutory bars.
– IRS: No injury has been proved, Anti-Injunction Act precludes pre-assessment suits.
– Declaratory Judgment Act restricts tax issues.
– According to code, individual refers to humans per precedents.
Pre-motion conference; Reynolds omitted response of IRS letter.
Current Pet Tax Treatment
Pets are property and not subject to general dependency, but niches are permitted.
| Allowed Deduction | Requirements |
|---|---|
| Service Animals | Medical necessity prescribed |
| Business Animals | Guard dogs, breeding stock |
| Foster Care | Charitable animal rescue |
Personal, non-deductible expenses are food, veterinary bills, grooming.
Legal Hurdles Ahead
Tax code defines persons as human beings, and courts do not believe in pet claims no matter how inventive they are.
– The qualifying child/ relative regulations require association or family connections with individuals.
– No dependent spouse or pet; aging parents, maybe given supported.
– Earlier decisions reject emotional statutory interpretations.
Professionals are likely to be dismissed hastily.
Extended Owner Implications in Pets
The possibility of success would open Head of Household status, EITC, and up to 2,000 + credits per pet.
– Reinvents dog/cat home filings of 70 million.
– Pet credit pet pushes of congress.
– Family roles of pets vs. legal boundaries.
The buzzes about social media are full of support and memes.
Case Trajectory
IRS motion to dismiss to occur soon; merits hearing Q1 2026 in case of survival.
– Reynolds puts paperwork response into preparation.
– DOJ quiet, can take action to Supreme Court.
– No 2025 tax impact; watch 2026 forms.
Symbolic wins are followed by pet lovers.
Quick FAQs
Q1: Can pets be dependents now?
No–in narrow cases only service/business animals.
Q2: Finnegan’s strongest claim?
Dependency tests passed with the exception of humanity; Equal Protection disparity.
Q3: Will the courts decide in favor of Reynolds?
Not likely- standing and code language favors IRS dismissal.