No Deductions for You: The IRS Says Your Dog Is Not a Dependent
A Dogged Attempt at Tax Reform Has Its Day in Court. Reynolds v. United States (E.D.N.Y. 2025)
Finnegan Mary Reynolds is a golden retriever. Since 2016, she has enjoyed “food, shelter, veterinary care, training, daycare and boarding” courtesy of her owner, New York attorney Amanda Reynolds. By any emotional measure, Finnegan is family and is a “dependent” as much as any child.
The IRS, unmoved by puppy dog eyes, disagrees. And in a December 2025 ruling on whether to stay discovery pending a motion to dismiss, a federal magistrate judge signaled that while “every dog has its day,” this probably won’t be it.
The case hasn’t been decided yet—the government’s motion to dismiss is still to come. But the court’s order staying discovery offers a preview of how this is likely to end, and it isn’t good news for Finnegan.
The Tail-Wagging Theory
Reynolds sued the IRS pro se, meaning she’s representing herself, which as lawyers like to say, gives you a fool for a client. Her argument: since she provides 100% of Finnegan’s financial support, her dog meets the Tax Code’s definition of a “dependent.”
There’s a certain logic here. The tax code asks whether you provide more than half of someone’s support. Reynolds provides all of Finnegan’s support. Case closed?
Not quite. The statute uses the word “individual” and lists qualifying relationships: children, parents, siblings, in-laws. Notably absent: golden retrievers. Also missing: cats, hamsters, fish and emotional-support ferrets.
This isn’t new ground. The Tax Court rejected pet-as-dependent claims back in 1975, ruling that “whatever validity there may be to the ancient maxim that a dog is man’s best friend, in no circumstances can a dog qualify as a dependent.” Fifty years later, the law hasn’t budged.
‘Barking’ at The Constitution
Undeterred, Reynolds, or should we say Finnegan, raised two constitutional claims. Both appear to miss the mark.
First, she argues the IRS violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee. One problem: that amendment only applies to state governments, not federal agencies like the IRS. It’s the Fifth Amendment that covers federal actors like the IRS. This is week-two material in law school, making it a “ruff” mistake for an attorney to make.
Second, she claims that denying pet deductions amounts to the government “taking” her property without compensation. But not getting a tax break isn’t the same as having something taken from you. By that logic, everyone who’s ever been denied a deduction has been robbed. The Constitution doesn’t guarantee the deductions you wish existed. Deductions exist by allowance of law…see the Internal Revenue Code.
More Problems in the Pound
The legal issues keep piling up like chew toys. Reynolds has never actually claimed Finnegan as a dependent and gotten rejected—she just wants the court to rule hypothetically. Federal courts don’t do hypotheticals. She also apparently never properly served the lawsuit on the government, sending papers to a “security representative” with missing pages. That’s not how you sue Uncle Sam. Perhaps the excuse is “my dog ate the papers”?!
And federal law specifically bars courts from issuing orders about tax assessments or declaring what should be deductible. If Reynolds wants dogs to qualify as dependents, she needs to lobby Congress, not file lawsuits.
What Pet Expenses You Can Actually Deduct
While Fido won’t fetch you a dependent exemption, some pet costs are legitimately deductible:
Service animals: Costs for guide dogs and other animals trained to assist with a diagnosed medical condition can qualify as medical expenses.
Business animals: Guard dogs protecting business property, farm animals, or pets used in commercial work may generate business deductions.
Foster animals: Unreimbursed expenses for fostering animals through a registered charity can count as charitable contributions.
What’s not deductible: kibble, vet visits for your family pet, grooming, boarding, training, or matching Halloween costumes—no matter how adorable.
The Bottom Line
Americans spent $152 billion on pets in 2024. For millions of households, pets truly are family. But the Tax Code isn’t about feelings—it’s about statutory definitions, and “dependent” means what Congress says it means.
Reynolds’s case hasn’t been dismissed yet, but it’s on a short leash. Her heart is in the right place, even if her legal arguments are barking up the wrong tree.
Finnegan, for her part, was unavailable for comment.
_______________________________________________
This article is for educational and entertainment purposes and does not constitute tax advice. The case is real and still pending. Finnegan is also real, and by all accounts, a very good dog.
