It’s no secret that pet owners love their pets, often considering them family members. It is also common knowledge among pet owners that pets are very expensive to care for. For years, owners have complained that they are not able to claim their pets as dependents on their taxes. Thankfully for them, attorney Amanda Reynolds has recently filed a lawsuit alleging that her dog should be considered a dependent.
Reynolds claims that her senior golden retriever, Finnegan, meets all meaningful dependency qualifications (besides being human). She argues that the classification of dogs as property does not accurately represent their household roles–after all, 97% of pet owners consider their pets to be family members, and 51% view them comparably with human family members. Further, pets often have rigorous care routines not required by most other forms of property. As such, she asserts, they (dogs, at least) should be considered dependents.Â
While it appears that the case will not proceed as intended, it sends a message about what taxpayers want. Even if the case is dismissed, it wouldn’t be the first time the courts were limited by existing law; that is, despite the courts’ powerlessness in this situation, policy change could still follow. It begs the question: should pets be treated like humans?
With regards to tax dependency, it is true that pets meet many of the standards for dependency. In some instances, pet expenses can be deductible (such as charitable, service animal/medical, or business expenses); however, these options are not accessible for most owners, and they ignore the costs and benefits of owning companion animals. It is worth mentioning that although pets require significant expenses and maintenance, human dependents still surpass those needs. It seems unlikely that pets will legally be considered equal to humans, but there may be potential for a new pet tax deduction that is measured differently from human dependency.
Animal rights advocates often push for harsher penalties for animal abuse, a perspective that has been gaining support in recent years. Research has shown links between animal abuse and human violence, suggesting (even to people without pets) that animal abuse poses greater threats than previously believed. It also provides promising possibilities of future research on crime prevention and consequences. A new Florida law implements a database of registered animal abusers (similar to other offender registries), limiting the ability of individuals with a history of animal cruelty to own pets. It appears to be the only one of its kind at the moment, so its success could lead to sweeping reforms across the country.Â
As animals gain more rights and recognition, it is important to set boundaries. Animals are fundamentally different from humans, and they should be treated as such. They cannot communicate fully with humans, consent, or be held liable for their actions. These facts lead owners to take certain precautions such as leaving their pets at home or having them spayed/neutered, and those practices shouldn’t change. While it would be acceptable for owners to have more freedom to choose in these situations (being allowed to take their well-behaved dogs to the post office, for example), they must still make reasonable, responsible decisions.Â