Receipts for Housing Payments

[tylermdespain]

Hello,

We just had our midyear audit and had a whopping number of exceptions because different kinds of assistance from Fast Offerings. For years we've just been using the lease agreements or invoices as the documentation needed. I've only been clerking for about a year and the last two audits I was a part of this wasn't a problem. The brother who clerked before me, and is still an assistant clerk, has also been doing the same thing his entire time as a clerk and has never had an exception from not having a payment confirmation from a rent check or an invoice that was paid by check. We also have some psychotherapy FO expenses being flagged this time around for a similar reason. In the past, the invoice plus the scanned check that is uploaded into the system automatically after the check is cashed has been enough documentation. We have never gotten receipts from any of the landlords or receipts of payment after the invoice has been paid. We never requested them either, since we thought the invoice or rental agreement was enough.

Anyway, the auditor marked a lot of expenses, some are partial rent payments, that need to have additional payment confirmation documentation added to the transactions. This was a huge shock to me, the bishop, and the assistant clerk. We're now being asked to chase down payment receipts from various landlords, again some of them partial payments, and that's not something I've had to do before. I'm not even certain we'll be able to get payment receipts for most of these transactions.

Has anyone else had any experience in getting these receipts? I have a feeling asking for them myself, when I've never had any contact with these landlords before, won't get me very far. We mail these checks and don't have any direct communication with the landlords. To them I'm just some random guy that would be asking for sensitive documents.

[jdlessley]

Either the auditor was not paying attention to the Local Unit Finance Audit System (LUFAS) instructions in the Payment section question 11, or they were given different instructions from their audit committee chairman or area auditor.

LUFAS states:

11. Does the payment have supporting documentation in accordance with the following criteria?

Every payment, cash withdrawal, and advance should be supported by receipts, invoices, or agreements documenting the date, amount, items purchased, place of purchase, any required taxes, and the fast-offering beneficiary (if applicable). Documentation showing only the balance due or payment request forms alone are not considered sufficient documentation.

• Digital copies of support documents are acceptable if they are legible and complete.
• Signed and unexpired lease agreements on file are acceptable for fast offering assistance for housing. Auditors should be able to reconcile the amount paid to the agreement. [emphasis added]
• If a receipt or an invoice is lost, the substitute documentation should include a full written explanation with the payment’s purpose, a description of what was bought or paid for, the name of the payee, the purchase date, and the name of the person assisted (if applicable). Substitute documentation should be a rare exception. If several transactions use substitute documentation, mark this question “No.”

Details shown on supporting documentation should match the information in the Church financial system.

Note that if the lease has expired, but has a continuation beyond expiration date clause, then additional documentation is required to support the rental payments. A written statement from the landlord stating the lease provisions have been extended with the amount of rent payments is best, but a written statement from the lessee (renter) is also acceptable if one cannot be obtained from the landlord.
Additionally, when the ward makes a partial FO assistance rent payment, then a note (text document) explaining the difference from the lease amount could be added to the LCR documentation. It goes a long way in alleviating the concerns of the auditor.

For the situation described, the bishop should contact the audit committee chairman to discuss the deviation, or more restrictive requirements, from LUFAS question 11. I would expect that if more restrictive requirements for FO assistance for housing were put into effect for the audit period, then that would have been announced and implemented before 1 January, 2026.

Disclosure: I am a ward clerk and a stake auditor. I was not informed of any change to question 11 requirements either before 1 January, 2026, or during the area auditor training before the audits began.

[waltbristow]

Agreed. Also see the topic on "How to do checks via FO when an invoice/receipt is not available until after payment?" at viewtopic.php?t=47083

As an Assistant Area Auditor, I tell the Stake Audit Chairmen that the ward/branch should have a copy of the lease -- preferably included with the payment as a digital upload.

• The lease should include the name of the fast-offering recipient.

• The amount paid should be the amount listed in the lease. If it is less, that's okay. If it's more, you need additional documentation to explain the difference.

• The lease should cover the month of the fast-offering payment. If the month of the payment is after the lease ends but the payment stays the same, it's okay. If the payment is more, you need new documentation. Often a note from the landlord is fine.

As an aside, if the ward/branch is paying the security deposit, I suggest there be a discussion about who gets the deposit when the lease ends. If the church unit should get it back, that needs to be included in the lease.

[eblood66]

Disclosure: I am a ward clerk and a stake auditor. I was not informed of any change to question 11 requirements either before 1 January, 2026, or during the area auditor training before the audits began.

Stake finance clerk here and I haven't seen any such changes either and our assistant area auditor didn't mention anything in our audit meeting. So I'm pretty sure there haven't been any church-wide instructions. As you said, maybe the area or stake wants to follow more restrictive rules but it should have been made very clear ahead of time.