New Lawsuit Demands the IRS Recognize Pets as Legal Dependents

Amanda Reynolds, a New York attorney, recently filed a complaint to sue the IRS on behalf of herself and a second plaintiff, Finnegan Mary Reynolds — her eight-year-old Golden Retriever. The new lawsuit aims to force the IRS to recognize pets as dependents, which would allow for some tax benefits for pet parents in the United States.

Right now, the IRS defines pets as property. But Reynolds (the human attorney, not the Golden Retriever) argues that since pets have no independent income, reside exclusive with their humans, and have annual expenses that can top $5,000, they satisfy every dependency requirement as delineated in section 152 of the IRS code (well, except for being human). She believes that classifying pets as property does not accurately reflect their status in families and households. “For all intents and purposes, Finnegan is like a daughter, and is definitely a ‘dependent,’” Reynolds wrote in the lawsuit.

She further argues that since some pets are eligible for tax benefits (notably, service animals), the burden on other pet parents is unjust. There is no discernible financial difference between service animals and companion animals, Reynolds asserts; therefore, both types of animals should be eligible for tax benefits. 

To back up her claim, she cites the Equal Protection Clause, which says the government must apply its laws fairly across different people, and the Takings Clause, which requires just compensation for private property. Reynolds says that treating taxpayers differently because of nonhuman dependents is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause, while denying a tax break for pet support is a wrongful taking which the Takings Clause should prevent. All that, Reynolds claims, means that it’s reasonable to recognize pets as “quasi-citizens entitled to limited civil recognition, including dependency status for tax purposes.”

For pet parents, it’s obvious: Pets are family and should be treated as such. But laws aren’t so supportive. Across the country, however, more and more pet parents are fighting for the legal status of their beloved animals — and they’re making progress.

In Pennsylvania, for example, a bill passed in the House that would classify pets as “living beings that are generally regarded as cherished family members” instead of inanimate personal property during divorce proceedings. This would allow judges to take into account the well-being of the pets when it comes to custody hearings. Earlier this year, a New York judge ruled that pets can be considered “immediate family” when it comes to providing compensation for emotional distress. 

However, in the case of this lawsuit, Judge James M. Wick, the magistrate in charge of overseeing the case in the Eastern District of New York, doesn’t seem to be sympathetic. He paused the discovery process, an important part of lawsuits where both parties gather and exchange information and evidence. While pausing doesn’t necessarily indicate that the case is null, it usually indicates that some fundamental legal questions need to be answered before proceeding. According to Forbes, Wicks decided that the IRS made a “substantial showing” that the lawsuit will likely be dismissed.

All the same, Reynolds told Forbes that she remains optimistic. “I commenced this case out of a labor-of-love as a dog owner and pup-mom to a Golden Retriever whom I esteem as my own daughter, having raised her by myself while my friends got married and had children,” she said. She’s taken her dog to daycare, paid for her medical visits, and given her shelter, and as far as she’s concerned, Finnegan Mary Reynolds is her kid. It seems very unlikely that the IRS will see things that way, but hey — we’re keeping our fingers crossed.