Self Reimbursement on Expenses

[jdlessley]

In the U.S. and Canada, a leader with finance edit permissions can enter an expense payment directly into LCRF but they should not do so for themselves unless the payment instrument is a paper check. There is no warning if the payment instrument is a paper check. If the payment instrument is an EFT payment it also shows the warning but does not prevent the processing and he would be the first approval. The requirement is the payee cannot give one of the approvals. With a paper check two other authorized signers on the check meet the requirement for the two approvals. As garystroble mentioned, it is better to give or send the receipts and payment information to another leader with finance edit permissions to enter the expense payment into LCRF. An auditor on his/her toes should notice if the payee is one of the approvals. And if so, it would/should be an audit exception.

Note: I have tested this periodically after submitting feedback a few years back about the system issue allowing a payee to enter the payment into LCRF for both payment instrument types. Each time the payment went through awaiting the second approval. I stopped the payment before the second approval by reviewing, rejecting, and then deleting the payment.

[eblood66]

It definitely works, but it feels weird clicking past that warning. I would like it better if we also had the ability to access a portal like the auxiliary presidencies (I know we're not supposed to call them that but I don't know of a replacement term) where they can enter the expense then have two other authorized individuals actually do the approval.

If you use the Expense Request in the Member Tools app then it works that way and there shouldn't be a warning. If you use LCR and get a warning, stop, and DO NOT bypass it. if you bypass the warning you'll almost surely get an audit exception.