Comments on: Are Tax Deductions for Pet Care Expenses Coming?

By: Gabby - dog fleas

Gabby - dog fleas — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 03:26:20 +0000

animals have the right to live normally as people does, thanks for sharing this. looking forward to see more post from you.
.-= Gabby – dog fleas´s last blog ..Two Common Symptoms Of Dog Skin Problems =-.

By: Suzanne

Suzanne — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 20:45:02 +0000

@Wild Dingo I couldn't agree more! It is nice to think of a tax deduction for vet bills and other legitimate expenses associated with caring for our furry or feathered family members. But this particular amendment to the tax code, HAPPY as it sounds, would need to be narrowed down *a lot* to make any sense!

By: Wild Dingo

Wild Dingo — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 20:04:09 +0000

Very interesting perspective. see… they don’t tell us this stuff in the media. only a legal person would know the politics. I’m kind of glad it won’t go through. I mean, ya, it would be nice to have for “qualified pet owners” with a “qualified pet” meaning…you’re not abusing your animal in anyay and keeping it in the house just to get a deduction. (ie not feeding it… that poor policed dog that starved to death from its owner a COP!) sigh. we (as a nation) just don’t do right by animals in so many ways. a tax break isn’t gonna help them. changing opinions on how to respect animals will.

By: Suzanne

Suzanne — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 17:54:40 +0000

@Wild Dingo
I’m not really sure the bill is going to go anywhere, to be quite honest with you. Although it has very recently picked up a co-sponsor in Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN-9), it still sits in the Ways and Means Committee and has since July. I think it is really more of a touchy-feely offering by Mr. McCotter so he can tell his constituents, “See? I’m looking out for you guys by trying to get you a tax break on your cuddly puppies!”

Beyond that, the bill does seem fairly broad. Although the definition of “qualified pet” expressly excludes animals used in conjunction with a trade or business (think breeders), it does not limit the number of “qualified pets” for which any individual may claim the deduction. Crazy Cat Lady on the Simpsons might be able to afford to go back on her meds if she can get a tax deduction for taking care of all those hundreds of cats.

Additionally, there is nothing in the bill that specifies how a taxpayer verifies that a qualified pet belongs to him or her. Although it does define “qualified pet” as a “legally owned, domesticated, live animal,” would that include, for example, (speaking of Crazy Cat Ladies) the stray cats that swarm around my mother’s back door every morning because they know she’s good for a handout? Technically, because they do appear to be strays, and they show up every day for their daily handouts, my mother could say she “legally owns” those cats. They don’t belong to anyone else, and she more or less takes care of them. So, the lack of specificity with respect to verifying that one owns the pet is a bit bothersome. (Even children need social security numbers in order to be little tax deductions, after all!)

Further, it does not seem to provide any limitations with respect to what constitutes “qualified pet care expenses” except those expenses incurred in connection with the acquisition of the pet. So, theoretically, in addition to the vet bills and the flea and tick control products and the dog food, I could deduct the hundreds of dollars a year I spend on chew toys that last 15 minutes, tops. And maybe the boarding expenses for when I travel. And the rugs my dogs have destroyed. (They needed something to chew, having demolished all their chew toys!)

All of that having been said, the bill could undergo revisions that would narrow its scope a bit. But I just don’t see it happening. I think it will die a lonely death in committee, its sponsor and co-sponsor no worse off for having put it out there.

By: Wild Dingo

Wild Dingo — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 19:01:29 +0000

I’m not so sure this is such a great idea. (but i’m not against it either) I’m a cynic and a “markerter” and think of how things like this can be used for “advantage.” Can you imagine all the “adoptions” that would happen with less than “caring” homes just so they can get the deduction? Geez, I can’t imagine all the “Vick-like” people (who haven’t been exposed) getting a “deduction”!

On the other hand it is great for those who are in a bad situation in the economy and undergoing foreclosures who have to get rid of their furry friends… i don’t know. if the pet owner is in such bad financial shape to undergo a foreclosure, i’m not so sure $3500 would be all that helpful anyway.

what do you think as a lawyer? just curious.