jgoggan wrote: Mon Aug 31, 2026 5:54 pm
Yeah, I was thinking about the lease and using that. But it really doesn't seem to solve the problem that the church was trying to solve there. I mean, in the old system, the receipt came AFTER and that sometimes created issues, sure -- but, in most cases, you ended up with something written showing that a specific check was used to pay a specific amount on a specific date.
In my experience (in a stake in Utah and a stake in Georgia over a period of 18 years), we almost never got receipts for rent payments. If you have, I'm impressed. It probably took a fair amount of effort. Most of the documentation for rent payments has just been an active lease. I've never had an auditor question it as long as the lease shows dates that include the month we're making payment for.
jgoggan wrote: Mon Aug 31, 2026 5:54 pm
With this new system, I stick in a copy of the lease -- and that really doesn't show that any specific payment was really used for any specific person.
For a reimbursement, I'd agree. A receipt shows that a specific person paid a specific amount for a specific purpose. But FO expenses are often different. They are usually/hopefully paid directly to the provider so the documentation is also different. Take a utility bill, for instance. Usually the documentation is the bill itself. That doesn't show that someone has already made a payment because no payment has been made yet. And I've never seen a utility company provide a receipt after payment. But the bill does show that there is a legal obligation to make the payment on behalf of a specific person. And that's what is really needed for a check paid to a provider.
A lease serves the same function for a rent check. It shows that the expense is a legitimate expense that needs to be paid. Since the check is paid directly to the provider, the fact that it cleared is evidence that the payment was made for the intended purpose. Together they provide pretty much the same evidence as a receipt does for a reimbursement.