A New York Dog Owner Sues IRS, Arguing Her Golden Retriever Should Count as a Tax Dependent

A New York woman has filed a federal lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), arguing that her golden retriever should qualify as a non-human dependent under U.S. tax law — a claim that challenges long-standing definitions of who, or what, counts as family in the eyes of the federal government.

According to the court filing, Amanda Reynolds, a New York City resident, submitted her complaint on June 19 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The lawsuit names the United States and the IRS as defendants and is brought on behalf of Reynolds and her dog, Finnegan Mary Reynolds, an 8-year-old golden retriever she describes as “entirely dependent” on her for survival.

Reynolds says she spends more than $5,000 each year on Finnegan’s care, including food, housing, veterinary services, grooming, training, transportation, daycare and boarding. The complaint argues that Finnegan satisfies key functional standards used to define dependents under Section 152 of the Internal Revenue Code — including financial reliance, shared residence and lack of independent income — but is excluded solely because she is not human.

Reynolds contends that this exclusion violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by treating taxpayers supporting non-human dependents differently from those supporting human dependents. The suit also raises a Fifth Amendment claim under the “Takings Clause,” arguing that denying tax credits or deductions connected to Finnegan’s care effectively forces a higher tax burden that amounts to an improper taking.

“While dogs are considered property,” the complaint states, “there is a rational basis to consider them as non-human companions where public policy espouses a fundamental appreciation for life and the pursuit of happiness.” Reynolds adds, “For all intents and purposes, Finnegan is like a daughter, and is definitely a ‘dependent.'”

The lawsuit acknowledges the claim is “novel,” but argues it is not frivolous, pointing to shifting perspectives on animal welfare and legal status. It also highlights what it calls an inconsistency in tax policy: Certain service animals can qualify as deductible medical expenses under existing IRS guidance, while companion animals — which may bring similar or identical costs — receive no tax recognition.

Reynolds argues that distinction lacks a rational basis when viewed purely as a financial matter, and she claims it creates a regressive penalty for pet owners who cover substantial care expenses without any relief. The suit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, asking the court to reinterpret Section 152 to allow dogs to qualify as non-human dependents or, at minimum, require the IRS to establish criteria for individualized review.

Among the remedies requested are an order preventing the IRS from categorically excluding dogs from dependent status, the creation of new regulatory standards for qualifying companion animals, and reimbursement of attorneys’ fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). Reynolds, a New York State licensed lawyer, is representing herself.

The IRS has not yet filed a response. While the lawsuit faces significant legal hurdles, it raises a broader question about whether modern households — where pets can function as full-fledged dependents in daily life — fit into a tax code built around strictly human dependents.