> you've got to really make the case that it was intentional—like that there was no dog at all which would be easy, as an animal ought to have been registered

> you've got to really make the case that it was intentional—like that there was no dog at all which would be easy, as an animal ought to have been registered and thus have a registration from which an easy check should've been possible. If the tax code deems that expenses such as a guard dog is something that can be deducted, then why is the nuance relevant at all? It's a dog, and it does guarding duties during business hours. Whether it performed the guarding duties well or not is also irrelevant - the expense of a dog would be the same whether they do guarding well, or sloppily. So the only opportunity for such fraud is if the dog didn't exist, and thus you're not really paying the expenses associated with said dog. I fail to see why having a dog and being able to expense it from your income is such a big deal. Edit: in fact, i personally would like to see the tax code simplified, so that each human can claim _all_ expenses for living, from their income, and only ever get taxed on profits (which is money they did not consume).