Could Minnesotans Claim A Dog As A Tax Dependent?

I have two dogs, Reno and Rory. Just like every other pet owner I know, I call them “boys” and “kids”, but I know they’re not people or real family. They’re animals. That makes me smarter than some lawyers in New York.

Amanda Reynolds, a civil litigation attorney licensed in New York and Utah, has filed a complaint in the Eastern District of New York on behalf of Finnegan Mary Reynolds claiming the tax laws in Finnegan’s case violate the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the constitution.

Finnegan is Amanda’s eight-year-old Golden Retriever. Amanda wants to list Finnegan as a dependent on her taxes.

Reynolds (Amanda, not the dog) claims that Finnegan (the dog) fits every qualification of a dependent under Section 152 of the Internal Revenue Code.

• Finnegan is dependent on Amanda for food, shelter, medical care, training, transportation and other daily living expenses
• Finnegan has no income.
• Finnegan lives with Amanda exclusively.
• Finnegan has expenses totaling more than $5,000 per year.

Get our free mobile app

The complaint claims that while dogs are classified as property under the tax code, it doesn’t reflect their role in a modern American family. Finnegan meets every qualification of a dependent… except for being human.

The tax code does allow for animal deductions under very narrow guidelines. Individuals can deduct medical care for service dogs. Animal foster homes can claim a charitable deduction. Animals used in businesses (like guard dogs) can have some expenses deducted. Even in these cases, shelter, food, and other daily expenses are considered personal expenses and therefore not deductible.

Reynolds claims the deductions allowed to certain classes of animals is discrimination and violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment (allows for just compensation of private property) and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (the government cannot treat people differently without valid reason).

This case is going to be a paper tiger. Right now, the case has not been dismissed, but a judge has granted a stay of discovery until the IRS rules on the complaint. They’re expected to dismiss it. The Federal court has questioned if a case can even move forward. Reynolds never claimed her dog as a dependent on her taxes and received some sort of punishment for it, so she has no standing (or reason) to file a lawsuit. The court also claims that she has not demonstrated an “entitlement to relief” and therefore is not required to hear the case.

Reynolds said this case is a labor of love on behalf of her dog. She doesn’t expect it to go far either, but will address the court’s issues once the case is dismissed.

Translation – don’t list Fluffy as a dependent quite yet.