A New York attorney has filed a federal lawsuit seeking to have her dog recognized as a dependent for tax purposes, a case that a judge has already signaled may face significant legal hurdles, according to court records and a report by Forbes.
Amanda Reynolds, an attorney licensed in New York and Utah, filed the complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York alongside Finnegan Mary Reynolds — her eight-year-old golden retriever.
The lawsuit asks the court to decide whether pets can qualify as non-human dependents under the federal tax code.
Reynolds argues that Finnegan meets nearly every requirement of dependency under Section 152 of the Internal Revenue Code, except for being human.
According to the complaint, the dog relies entirely on Reynolds for food, shelter, medical care, training, transportation and daily living needs, has no independent income, lives exclusively with her and has annual expenses exceeding $5,000.
“For all intents and purposes, Finnegan is like a daughter, and is definitely a ‘dependent,’” Reynolds wrote in the filing.
The lawsuit points to the disconnect between how Americans view their pets and how federal tax law treats them.
While about 94 million U.S. households own pets and 97% of pet owners say their animals are part of the family, pets are classified as property under the law and cannot be claimed as dependents.
Reynolds contends that this creates an unfair tax burden.
The tax code allows credits and deductions — including the Child Tax Credit, the Credit for Other Dependents and the Earned Income Tax Credit — for people who support human dependents, but offers no comparable relief for those who shoulder similar financial responsibilities for companion animals.
She also notes that the IRS allows certain tax benefits for service animals, arguing there is no meaningful financial distinction between service dogs and companion animals.
Treating taxpayers differently based solely on whether their dependents are human, the lawsuit claims, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
The complaint also raises a Fifth Amendment takings claim, asserting that denying tax relief for pet care results in higher taxes without compensation.
Taken together, Reynolds argues, those issues justify recognizing dogs as “quasi-citizens entitled to limited civil recognition, including dependency status for tax purposes.”
The court, however, has not yet addressed the substance of those arguments.
Earlier this month, U.S. Magistrate Judge James M. Wicks granted a request to pause the discovery process while the Internal Revenue Service prepares a motion to dismiss the case.
Discovery is the phase of a lawsuit when both sides exchange evidence and conduct depositions, a process that can be costly and time-consuming.
In granting the stay, Wicks found that the IRS had made a substantial showing that the complaint is unlikely to survive dismissal.
In a pre-motion conference letter, the government cited several problems, including lack of standing, improper service of the lawsuit and failure to state a valid legal claim.
Court records show Reynolds did not respond to that letter.
Standing is a threshold requirement in federal court and generally requires a plaintiff to show an actual injury that can be addressed by the court.
Wicks noted that Reynolds did not allege she attempted to claim her dog as a dependent or suffered a concrete harm as a result of being unable to do so.
The judge also pointed to legal barriers specific to tax cases.
The Anti-Injunction Act typically prevents courts from hearing lawsuits aimed at stopping the assessment or collection of taxes, and the Declaratory Judgment Act bars federal courts from issuing rulings related to federal taxes.
The IRS further argues that Reynolds did not properly serve the agency, a requirement that must be strictly followed when suing a federal entity.
While Wicks did not formally rule on the merits, he observed that the constitutional claims appear weak.
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to states, not federal agencies, and courts have repeatedly held that paying taxes does not amount to a compensable taking under the Fifth Amendment.
Tax statutes and precedent also make clear that the term “individual” in the dependency rules refers to human beings.
Under federal law, dependents must qualify as either a “qualifying child” or a “qualifying relative,” both of which require the dependent to be a person.
Courts and the IRS have consistently interpreted that language to exclude animals, regardless of their role in a household.
The tax code does allow limited deductions related to animals in specific circumstances.
Expenses for service animals may qualify as medical deductions, animals used in a trade or business may generate deductible expenses, and caring for foster animals can sometimes result in charitable deductions.
Routine pet expenses, such as food, grooming and veterinary care, are generally considered personal and not deductible.
The case has not yet been dismissed, but the recent ruling suggests it may not proceed much further.
The Department of Justice declined to comment.
Reynolds told Forbes that she filed the case as “a labor-of-love as a dog owner and pup-mom,” describing years of expenses for daycare, medical care, food and housing for Finnegan.
She said she expects the case to be largely handled through written filings and plans to respond once the IRS formally moves to dismiss.
For now, however, federal tax forms remain unchanged — and dogs like Finnegan are not eligible to be listed as dependents.
©2025 Cox Media Group
