Can Your Pet Save You on Your Taxes?
Robert Davi pushes for tax break up to $3,500 per person for pet care expenses.
Oct. 13, 2009— -- Will Max be a tax break? Can Fido help with FICA?
A bill making the rounds on Capitol Hill marries two feel-good propositions -- tax cuts and pet ownership -- to generate a novel idea: A tax break of up to $3,500 per person for pet care expenses.
The measure is a legislative long shot. But it's been championed by a veteran Hollywood tough guy and by a conservative Michigan congressman, and has drawn the enthusiastic support of animal rights groups eager to promote pet ownership during economic down times.
"We think this is as much a health care bill as any," said Nancy Perry, vice president of government affairs at the Humane Society of the United States. "It's a human health issue to ensure that pets are provided with better care because of the role they play in our families."
The measure even has a snappy acronym: the HAPPY Act, as in Humanity and Pets Partnered Through the Years.
"What a pro-active way to be able to help the economy and change the culture in this country around animals," Robert Davi, a veteran actor ("The Goonies," "Die Hard," "License to Kill") who was a main force behind the bill's introduction, told ABCNews.com in a telephone interview.
"This money goes back into the economy, and it encourages people to understand the social responsibilities we have toward animals," Davi said.
Betsy Dribben, vice president of government relations for the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, is realistic about the bill's prospects. Her group is supporting the bill but taking a wait-and-see attitude before pressing members of Congress.
But with more attention being paid to the fate of pets whose owners lose their homes, she said interest is growing on Capitol Hill and beyond about how the government can respond.
"There is a move afoot. There is a general acknowledgement that people really care about their pets," Dribben said. "Taking care of pets does cost money, and during the dramatic decline of people's income and the shaky economy, any possibility of assisting people in meeting those costs should be looked at."