A woman is suing the IRS to claim her dog as a tax dependent

An attorney has filed a lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service arguing that her dog should qualify as a legal dependent under federal tax law.

Amanda Reynolds, a lawyer licensed in New York and Utah, is challenging the IRS’s long-standing classification of pets as property rather than dependents.

In her complaint, Reynolds contends that her eight-year-old golden retriever, Finnegan, meets the practical criteria typically used to define dependency, aside from being human.

According to the filing, the dog relies entirely on Reynolds for food, housing, medical care, transportation, and training, has no independent income, and costs more than $5,000 annually to support.

Reynolds argues that if these circumstances applied to a person, the IRS would already recognize the dependent status.

The lawsuit claims current tax rules fail to reflect modern realities of pet ownership, where companion animals are often treated as family members. Reynolds also points to limited tax allowances for service animals, arguing that the financial distinction between service animals and companion pets is inconsistent.

In addition to tax policy arguments, the complaint raises constitutional claims, asserting that existing regulations unfairly burden pet owners and violate principles of equal protection. Reynolds further suggests that companion animals should be granted a limited legal recognition for tax purposes.

While legal experts remain skeptical about the case’s chances, the lawsuit has drawn attention to broader questions about how tax law intersects with changing social norms.