Some lawsuits are frivolous. Some are misguided. And some, even when they’re destined to lose, manage to shine a light on something very real.
Take the recent case of a woman suing the IRS, arguing that her Labrador retriever should qualify as a dependent. The dog, she says, relies on her for food, shelter, medical care, and emotional support. The IRS responded, in essence, that while the dog may be loyal, loving, and expensive, it is not a person.
Legally, the IRS is right. Practically, emotionally, and spiritually, the Labrador has a case.
As the sole breadwinner in a household that includes a wife, three children, aging parents who may soon need care, a dog, chickens, ducks, employees, and a pond full of fish that apparently believe feeding is a constitutional right, I understand the instinct. If dependency were defined by who expects you to show up every day with money and food, the Labrador would not be my weakest claimant.
What the Tax Code Says
Under federal tax law, a dependent must be either a qualifying child or a qualifying relative, as outlined in IRS Publication 501. These categories involve tests for relationship, residency, income, and support. They also quietly assume the dependent is human.
Pets are out. Chickens, ducks, fish, and Labradors remain stubbornly nondeductible.
Adding to the confusion, even human dependents don’t work the way many people assume. From 2018 through 2025, the personal and dependency exemption amount is suspended (set to $0) under current law. You can still claim dependents, but doing so primarily matters for credits and filing benefits, not a deduction that reduces taxable income.
In plain English: Claiming a dependent usually doesn’t lower your taxable income anymore, but it can unlock credits like the Child Tax Credit, the Credit for Other Dependents, head-of-household filing status, or eligibility for certain deductions.
That nuance alone explains why people feel the system is more complicated than it needs to be. They’re not wrong.
Is a Deduction Just an Expense?
At heart, yes. A deduction is simply an expense the government allows you to subtract before calculating tax. If you earn $200,000 and have $40,000 in allowable deductions, you’re taxed on $160,000. No one sends you a thank-you note. You just avoid being taxed on dollars the government has decided should be excluded.
But here’s the key point: Congress decides which expenses count. The IRS enforces those decisions. Courts step in when someone brings a Labrador into a legal argument.
Business expenses are broadly deductible because the tax system aims to tax net income, not gross receipts. If I pay employees, buy equipment, or maintain livestock that helps generate income, those costs reduce taxable profit. That’s not generosity; it’s arithmetic.
Personal expenses are treated differently. Feeding children, caring for parents, or keeping a dog alive long enough to destroy another couch generally comes from after-tax dollars. Congress makes selective exceptions through credits and limited deductions because society has decided that some forms of care are worth subsidizing.
The Numbers Matter
This is where the Labrador lawsuit stops being silly and starts being sympathetic.
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the estimated cost to raise a child born in 2015 through age 17 is about $233,610, excluding college. Anyone who has paid a college tuition bill knows that number is merely the opening act.
Elder care is even more sobering. Genworth’s 2024 Cost of Care Survey puts national median annual costs at roughly $70,800 for assisted living, $111,325 for a semi-private nursing home room, and $127,750 for a private room. Medical expense deductions exist, but only for costs exceeding 7.5% of adjusted gross income, and only if you itemize. Many families shoulder enormous care costs that never cross that threshold.
Pets aren’t cheap either. The American Animal Hospital Association estimates that lifetime care for a dog can run up to $60,000, depending on size, health, and how often the dog believes socks are edible.
None of this qualifies the Labrador as a dependent. But it does explain why people feel squeezed between responsibility and recognition.
Why the Dog Still Loses
Here’s the hard line the law draws: An animal cannot be legally made into a child or a relative.
There is no mechanism under federal or state law to adopt an animal in the way one adopts a child. Shelter “adoptions” are legally transfers of property ownership. Family law defines children and relatives through birth, marriage, or legal adoption between humans. The tax code follows the same structure.
Even estate planning stops short. All 50 states allow pet trusts, which let owners set aside money for an animal’s care after death. But the pet does not inherit. The pet does not become family in the legal sense. The law simply allows humans to fund ongoing care for property that breathes.
Courts have begun, in limited divorce cases, to consider the “best interest” of a pet when awarding possession. That sounds like custody, but it’s still property allocation with empathy layered on top. The line holds.
If animals could be declared children or relatives, the ripple effects would be enormous: tax dependency rules, child support, inheritance, insurance, immigration, wrongful death claims, even criminal law would be thrown into confusion. The law favors predictability over affection.
Rooting for the Lady and Dog
Even knowing all that, I can’t help rooting a little for the plaintiff and her Labrador.
Not because the IRS should lose, but because the question she’s asking isn’t absurd. It’s just ahead of where the law is willing to go.
Modern households support far more than the tax code comfortably acknowledges. Children stay dependent longer. Parents need help sooner. Businesses blur into family life. Pets become emotional constants in increasingly unstable worlds. And the responsibility, financial and otherwise, lands on a shrinking group of earners.
The Labrador won’t win in court. It shouldn’t. But the lawsuit earns a gentle nod for highlighting the gap between lived reality and statutory language.
Until Congress revisits how dependency is recognized, the dog remains nondeductible, emotionally essential, and blissfully unaware of IRS publications.
Which, honestly, might be the healthiest possible relationship any of us can have with the tax code.
Evan R. Guido is founder of Aksala Wealth Advisors LLC, a 2026 Forbes Best in State Wealth Advisor, a 2018 Forbes Next-Gen Advisor, and heads a team of financial strategists for clients who consider themselves the “Millionaire Next Door.” He can be reached at 941-500-5122, Aksala.com, eguido@aksalawealth.com; 6260 Lake Osprey Drive, Lakewood Ranch, FL 34240. Read more at finance.heraldtribune.com/category/ask-guido. Securities offered through Cetera Wealth Services LLC, a member FINRA/SIPC. Advisory services offered through Cetera Investment Advisers LLC, a registered investment adviser. The views and opinions in this article are those of Evan R. Guido and not of Cetera or its subsidiaries. These opinions are not intended to predict or depict performance of any investment and are subject to change. These views should not be construed as a recommendation to buy or sell any securities and are purely for education and entertainment.
This article originally appeared on Sarasota Herald-Tribune: Woman sues IRS to claim Labrador as a tax dependent | Retire on Track
Reporting by Evan Guido, Special to the Herald-Tribune / Sarasota Herald-Tribune
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
