Can Your Dog Be a Tax Dependent? One New York Lawsuit Puts the IRS on the Leash

In a case that sounds like satire but is very real, a New York attorney has filed a federal lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service, arguing that her pet dog should qualify as a tax dependent under federal law. The lawsuit has drawn national attention, sparked debate across the legal community, and reopened a broader conversation about how government defines “family” in modern America.

A Lawsuit That Turned Heads

The case was filed by New York attorney Amanda Reynolds, who claims her eight-year-old golden retriever meets every practical test of dependency except one: being human. According to the lawsuit, the dog lives with her full-time, has no independent income, and is entirely supported by Reynolds — including food, shelter, veterinary care, insurance, and daily living expenses.

Reynolds estimates the annual cost of caring for her dog exceeds $5,000, an amount that would otherwise satisfy financial dependency thresholds elsewhere in the tax code. Her legal argument rests on the idea that pets today are treated as family members, not merely personal property.

What the Tax Code Says

Under existing federal law, dependents must be people — either qualifying children or qualifying relatives — a definition consistently enforced by the IRS for decades. Pets are classified as personal property, making routine pet expenses non-deductible for individual taxpayers.

There are limited exceptions. Service animals, working animals, or animals used in a legitimate business capacity may qualify for certain deductions. Household pets, however, do not. The IRS has maintained that position regardless of rising pet ownership costs or changing cultural norms.

Where the Case Stands

A federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York has paused discovery while the IRS prepares a motion to dismiss. Legal analysts widely expect the case to be thrown out, noting that redefining “dependent” would require congressional action — not a judicial ruling.

Still, the lawsuit has already succeeded in elevating a conversation many lawmakers have avoided: whether the tax code still reflects how Americans actually live.

Symbolism vs. Reality

Supporters of the lawsuit say it highlights a disconnect between government policy and modern households, where pets are often treated as children in all but name. Critics argue the case is frivolous and risks undermining the clarity of tax law.

Regardless of the outcome, the lawsuit underscores a larger truth: cultural shifts often outpace legal frameworks, and the tax code is no exception.

Bottom Line

No matter how beloved, dogs are not dependents under current law — and that is unlikely to change anytime soon. But this case has forced a national discussion about family, fairness, and whether Washington’s rules are keeping up with everyday American life.

For now, pet owners should not expect to list their dog on next year’s tax return. Still, as with many unconventional lawsuits, today’s long-shot argument could become tomorrow’s policy debate.

Sources

• People Magazine — “New York Dog Owner Sues IRS, Arguing Her Golden Retriever Should Count as a Tax Dependent”

• KIRO-7 News (CBS) — Coverage of court proceedings and IRS response

• Straight Arrow News — Legal analysis and expert commentary

• Internal Revenue Code, Section 152

• IRS Publication 501 — Dependents, Standard Deduction, and Filing Information