New York lawyer sues the IRS to recognize her Golden Retriever as her ‘daughter’ for tax benefits — citing a $5,000 annual expense

A New York lawyer has taken an unconventional step by asking the courts to recognize her Golden Retriever as her 'daughter' for tax purposes. Amanda Reynolds and her dog, Finnegan Mary Reynolds, filed a lawsuit in the Eastern District of New York seeking to have pets recognized in a new legal category. She argued that this would formally acknowledge the responsibilities and care involved in pet ownership. The case, filed sometime in 2025, highlights the unusual but growing trend of pet owners treating their animals as full members of the family. Reynolds points out that Finnegan has annual expenses exceeding $5,000, emphasizing the financial responsibility she carries for her dog.

As reported by The Independent on Monday, December 15, 2025, Reynolds claims that the eight-year-old dog meets all criteria for a human dependent except for being human. In her complaint, she writes, “For all intents and purposes, Finnegan is like my daughter, and is definitely a ‘dependent.’” She notes that while dogs are legally considered property, that classification does not reflect their role in households. Reynolds argues that excluding pets from dependent status places an extra financial strain on owners, particularly since the IRS provides certain tax benefits for some animals, such as service dogs. The lawsuit notes that claiming a dependent can result in tax-favored credits and deductions, including the Child Tax Credit, Credit for Other Dependents, and the Earned Income Tax Credit, as per Forbes. 

The lawsuit states that existing tax law presents constitutional problems, violating both the Equal Protection Clause and the Takings Clause. The Equal Protection Clause ensures laws are enforced fairly without unjust discrimination, while the Takings Clause requires compensation when private property is taken. Reynolds argues that treating taxpayers differently just because their dependents are not human is discriminatory and that refusing to provide any tax relief for the care of pets effectively forces owners to bear higher financial costs. She contends that pets, like service animals, require significant financial support, yet the tax code fails to provide relief. The case maintains that these points give the lawsuit substance and credibility, making it deserving of careful consideration despite its unusual nature.

Magistrate Judge James M. Wicks has granted a pause on discovery while the IRS is expected to file a motion to dismiss. Court documents indicate challenges, including standing, procedural issues, and legal limits under the Anti-Injunction Act and Declaratory Judgment Act, which prevent courts from issuing relief regarding federal taxes before a claim arises. The Anti-Injunction Act stops courts from considering cases filed “for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax.” The Declaratory Judgment Act further prevents federal courts from issuing rulings that would determine rights or obligations concerning federal taxes. The lawsuit has drawn attention for proposing that dogs could be recognized as “quasi-citizens entitled to limited civil recognition, including dependency status for tax purposes.” Reynolds concludes, “This case is not frivolous or meritless,” and hopes the court will consider the growing financial and emotional role pets play in households.