You can’t game the system. You put your child’s SSN and DOB on your taxes. So for any woman filling her taxes, the child would have had to be born by midnight Dec 31st.
So the pregnancy credit would be carried over and a first time parent should get a child + pregnancy extra credit. (Or deduction. Depends on how you want to do this.) That way, no one cheats the system! (:
If you conceive on January 10th and have a child on September 1, then you should get a child + pregnancy credit for the following tax year.
Right now, if you want to claim a dependent, your child has to be born before Jan 1.
Claiming to be “intrigued by” opinion you later voice contempt for is sarcasm.
It is also one of the most trite expressions of sarcasm, hence its favor with
those whose writing skills were arrested sometime around age 12.
Undetected pregnancy would obviously not be deductible. Heavy menstrual flow
is obviously not sufficient to establish that pregnancy has ever taken place.
Also, the purpose of dependency deduction is help defray expense, not to serve as
a reward system. Conditions such as you refer to entail little or no expense.
No time limit.
Yes, for the second time. Think you got it now?
It does not matter where life begins, and the only stupidity voiced here is by you for
failing to grasp that a potential problem could have a simple solution.
I’m not saying they are hypocrites. It’s entirely possible that they have never thought about the implications of taking the position that a fetus is a person
You seem to be limiting the number of pregnancy deductions to one per year,
in which case I agree there is little potential for abuse.
I only thought it would be more logically consistent and not extravagantly generous
to allow for more than one per year to provide for such rare cases as having two
medically established mid-term miscarriages in one calendar year.
No, because a child gets that special ‘status’ after the second trimester. If a woman carries a child for 10 months, well, makes sense it ends up being a one time extra bonus the first year they file the child as a dependent.
Clearly, if there was such a deduction, it should go to the father. A deduction for the wrath the poor guy suffered for walking too loud, or ever so slightly rocking the bed when readjusting his sleeping position, or not anticipating the need for banana cream pie at 9 PM.
Those miners who were trapped for 6 months got a deduction for what they suffered and that was only 6 months.
There is logic in the OP. But it reminds me of a PLayboy Cartoon years ago. A IRS agent was going over a tax form. He explained to the tax payer what was rejected.
" You are taking deductions like you are a somebody, whereas you are actually a nobody."
I think they should if pregnancy is medically established beforehand,
with the understanding that the number per year may be limited if it
becomes apparent that the system is being abused.