Comparing a dog to a human dependent under the 14th Amendment is the kind of 'legal gymnastics' that would win a gold medal if it weren't so likely to be dismissed. Reynolds is essentially arguing that since we already allow deductions for service animals (medical) and guard dogs (business), treating a companion dog differently is 'tax discrimination.' It’s the ultimate 'Pup-Mom' manifesto written in Legalese.
Great insights on the court ruling, but let’s be honest: the dog is the real MVP of this post.
I guess the court decided that 'paw-renthood' doesn't count for a tax break. Tough break for the pup.
Comparing a dog to a human dependent under the 14th Amendment is the kind of 'legal gymnastics' that would win a gold medal if it weren't so likely to be dismissed. Reynolds is essentially arguing that since we already allow deductions for service animals (medical) and guard dogs (business), treating a companion dog differently is 'tax discrimination.' It’s the ultimate 'Pup-Mom' manifesto written in Legalese.