Can Dogs Be Claimed as Dependents? A New Lawsuit Tests How Far “Family” Status Really Goes

A New York attorney has filed a federal lawsuit against the IRS arguing that her golden retriever should qualify as a dependent for tax purposes. The case, first reported by KIRO 7, has quickly gained traction online — not because it’s likely to succeed, but because it taps into a much bigger conversation already underway: when the law starts calling dogs “family,” what does that actually mean?

Amanda Reynolds filed the complaint alongside her eight-year-old golden retriever, Finnegan, arguing that he relies on her entirely for food, shelter, medical care, transportation, and daily living needs. According to the filing, his annual care costs exceed $5,000, and he has no independent income — criteria that mirror many of the requirements for human dependents under the tax code.

Where This Case Collides With Legal Reality

Despite the emotional appeal, federal tax law remains firm. Under the Internal Revenue Code, dependents must be human. Pets are still legally classified as property, regardless of how central they are to a household. A federal magistrate judge has already signaled significant hurdles for the lawsuit, pausing discovery while the IRS prepares a motion to dismiss and citing longstanding barriers such as standing, procedural issues, and statutory limits on tax-related lawsuits.

In short, while the case raises interesting questions, it is unlikely to result in dogs being claimable dependents under current law.

How This Fits Into a Bigger Legal Shift

What makes this lawsuit notable isn’t the tax argument itself — it’s the timing. Earlier this year, a New York court made headlines by recognizing a dog as an “immediate family member” in a housing dispute, ruling that a tenant could not be separated from her late partner’s dog under a family-only guest policy. That decision marked one of the clearest acknowledgments yet that dogs occupy a role far beyond property in modern life.

That ruling didn’t rewrite all of New York law, and it doesn’t apply nationally — but it cracked the door open. It reflects a growing willingness among courts to acknowledge the emotional, relational, and caregiving bonds between people and their dogs, even if those bonds aren’t yet reflected across all areas of law.

The IRS case shows where that recognition currently stops.

What the Law Allows – and Doesn’t

While routine pet expenses are not deductible, there are narrow exceptions that already exist. Service animals may qualify for medical deductions. Foster animals cared for on behalf of registered rescues can sometimes be tied to charitable deductions. Animals used in a trade or business may generate deductible expenses. These allowances are based on function, not family status.

Courts and tax authorities have consistently rejected attempts to deduct everyday pet care or claim companion animals as dependents. No known U.S. lawsuit has successfully changed that standard.

How Nevada Compares

Here in Nevada, pets are still treated strictly as property under the law. Courts generally do not consider a dog’s well-being in custody disputes unless both parties agree otherwise. Landlords may restrict pets outside of federally protected service and assistance animal rules. That said, Nevada does allow pet trusts, offering one practical way for guardians to ensure long-term care for their dogs.

Other states have begun experimenting with more progressive frameworks — allowing judges to consider a pet’s best interest in certain disputes or including animals in protective orders — but tax law remains unchanged nationwide.

Why These Conversations Still Matter

Most dog lovers don’t need a court ruling to know their dog is family. But when courts begin using that language — even in limited contexts — it signals a cultural shift that can influence future laws, policies, and expectations.

This IRS lawsuit may not succeed, but it reflects how far public perception has moved. As more legal systems acknowledge the realities of modern pet guardianship, pressure grows for clearer, more consistent protections — even if tax dependency isn’t the next step.

For now, dogs can be family in the ways that matter most, even if the tax code hasn’t caught up. And as recent rulings show, the legal landscape around animals is evolving — slowly, unevenly, but undeniably.