Now look, I'm all for paying less in taxes to the government in almost every case, but this is ridiculous.
Crazy New York woman Amanda Reynolds filed a federal lawsuit to get Finnegan Mary Reynolds recognized as a dependent while filing taxes.
Finnegan Mary is an eight-year-old golden retriever.
This case presents a novel but urgent question: whether domestic companion animals, such as Plaintiff Finnegan Mary Reynolds, an eight year-old American-born golden retriever, may be recognized as non-human dependents under U.S. federal tax law, and whether the current tax code's exclusion of such recognition violates constitutional guarantees of Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment and, simultaneously, protections against arbitrary wrongful takings under the Fifth Amendment.
Reynolds argues that her dog is completely dependent on her and is part of her family, so she should be able to claim the canine as a dependent.
Plaintiff further asserts that the evolving understanding of animal legal status, coupled with state and federal regulation of animals as regulated entities, justifies the recognition of dogs as quasi-citizens entitled to limited civil recognition.
There is no "evolving understanding of animal legal status" among sane people.
But New York is full of insane people, like that time 2 out of 7 judges on New York's Supreme Court ruled an elephant was a person.
And there were definitely supporters out there:
Thankfully, there's enough sanity left in the nation that getting a fur baby counted as a human baby on your taxes is still unlikely.
P.S. Now check out our latest video 👇
