A New York attorney has taken an unusual step in the tax courts, filing a lawsuit that could redefine how pets are treated for federal tax purposes.
The Unconventional Claim
Amanda Reynolds, a New York attorney, and her eight-year-old golden retriever, Finnegan, filed suit in the Eastern District of New York. The lawsuit argues that Finnegan meets the IRS’s criteria for a legal dependent. Reynolds contends the dog relies entirely on her for food, shelter, medical care, training, and transportation. She also points out that Finnegan has no independent income, lives exclusively with her, and that the annual expenses for the dog exceed $5,000.
The Legal Basis
Reynolds cites the IRS’s own guidelines, which define pets as property. However, she argues that the agency’s rules fail to capture the reality of her relationship with Finnegan. “For all intents and purposes, Finnegan is like my daughter, and is definitely a ‘dependent,'” Reynolds told QZ. She added that the lawsuit is not “frivolous or meritless” even if it may appear unusual.
Tax Implications
The case hinges on whether the IRS can recognize a pet as a dependent for tax deductions. Reynolds points out that the IRS already allows certain pets, such as service animals, to qualify for tax advantages. She claims that treating Finnegan as a dependent would relieve her of an unfair burden imposed by current rules.
Judicial Response
Judge James M. Wicks, who is overseeing the case, has granted a motion to pause the discovery process. The pause comes as the IRS is expected to file a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The judge’s decision to halt discovery indicates the court is giving the parties time to prepare for the potential dismissal.
The Broader Debate
While the lawsuit focuses on a single dog, it touches on a larger debate about the classification of pets in federal tax law. If successful, the case could open the door for other pet owners to claim similar deductions. The legal arguments presented by Reynolds challenge the traditional view that pets are purely property.
Current Status
As of now, the lawsuit is pending. The IRS’s anticipated motion to dismiss will likely set the next stage of the legal process. The court’s pause on discovery means that both sides will have time to gather evidence and refine their arguments.
Potential Outcomes
If the court sides with Reynolds, it could establish a precedent for recognizing pets as dependents under certain circumstances. Conversely, a dismissal would reinforce the existing stance that pets do not qualify as legal dependents.
Key Takeaways
- Amanda Reynolds and her dog Finnegan have filed a lawsuit in the Eastern District of New York, claiming the dog meets IRS dependent criteria.
- The lawsuit argues the dog relies on Reynolds for all basic needs and incurs annual expenses over $5,000.
- Judge James M. Wicks has paused discovery as the IRS is expected to file a motion to dismiss.
The case remains a unique intersection of pet ownership and tax law, and its outcome could influence how pet owners approach federal tax filings in the future.
