As first reported by Kelly Phillips Erb over at Forbes (hi, Kelly!), attorney and dog lover Amanda Reynolds is suing the IRS to get them to recognize that, for tax purposes, pets should be considered family. Well, dependents. And she’s specifically talking about her dog Finnegan.
Reynolds says that Finnegan, her eight-year-old golden retriever, is entirely dependent on her for food, shelter, medical care, training, transportation, and daily living. Finnegan has no independent income, resides exclusively with her, and has annual expenses exceeding $5,000. That means, Reynolds argues, that Finnegan satisfies every meaningful element of dependency recognized under section 152 of the Internal Revenue Code—except for being human. As a result, Reynolds has asked the court to determine whether pets can be recognized as non-human dependents under federal tax law.
According to the complaint, while dogs are legally classified as property, that does not fully reflect their role within families and households. Reynolds says that Finnegan’s care responsibilities mirror, and sometimes surpass, those of human dependents. Reynolds writes that “For all intents and purposes, Finnegan is like a daughter, and is definitely a ‘dependent’.”
Unlike a daughter, Reynolds can’t claim any tax credits for her role as head of the household pack. This, she says, is unfair to taxpayers who are beholden to children of the fur variety rather than the small human kind.
Reynolds claims this results in an arbitrary and unfair tax burden since taxpayers who provide financial support for human dependents get the benefit of tax breaks, while dog owners who provide similar levels of care receive none. This unequal treatment, she says, lacks a rational basis, especially considering the IRS’s own recognition that some animals—specifically, service dogs—may qualify for tax advantages. Reynolds argues that, from a financial standpoint, there is no real difference between service animals and companion animals.
Per American Veterinary Medical Foundation (AVMF) data, the total population of pet cats and dogs in the US is estimated to be 163.6 million, a 45% increase from 1996. Now imagine if all those taxpaying pet owners could claim a pet credit every year.
Look, this story makes for an amazing headline. According to Kelly’s deep dive on the technical aspects however, it’s unlikely this will get anywhere with the IRS. Reynolds must have known going into this that her salient arguments were unlikely to thaw the cold black heart of US tax code but at least she can say she tried.
“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 told Forbes in a statement. “She has been in daycare while I am at work, I have paid for her medical visits, hospital visits, food, shelter and all other facets attendant to dog ownership.”
Pets across America and the empty wallets of their owners salute you, Amanda.
You may have heard that California is having some budget issues. Sure there’s this Wisconsin business and all that but seriously folks, Californ-I-A is really in the fiscal shithouse. There are a number of reasons for this, most of which we won’t get into here but it should be noted that ill-behaved celebrities haven’t been receiving their fair share of blame in the press. 
We’re going to be frank; Jim Peterson is a cerebral guy. When you read his posts over at