[CFI] [$250] Admin can pay report in Expensify Classic but not New Expensify

[m-natarajan]

If you haven’t already, check out our contributing guidelines for onboarding and email contributors@expensify.com to request to join our Slack channel!

---

Version Number: 9.2.85-1
Reproducible in staging?: Y
Reproducible in production?: Y
If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from BrowserStack:
Email or phone of affected tester (no customers):
Logs: https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/4856
Expensify/Expensify Issue URL:
Issue reported by: @joekaufmanexpensify
Slack conversation (hyperlinked to channel name): #Migrate

Action Performed:

Preconditions:
Create a workspace as admin A, and add a business bank account to the workspace. Set admin A as workspace payer.
Add admin B to the workspace as an admin who has access to the same business bank account. Set admin B as the approver.
Invite employee C to the workspace as a member.

1. As employee C, submit a report with an expense
2. As admin B approve the report. This sends it to admin A to pay
3. Go to the report as admin A in both Expensify Classic and New Expensify
4. Verify you see the option to pay it
5. Go to the report as admin B in Expensify Classic
6. Verify you see the option to pay it
7. Go to the report as admin B in New Expensify

Expected Result:

You see the option to pay the report like in Expensify Classic.

Actual Result:

The option to pay the report is not shown in NewDot.

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

Select the officially supported platforms where the issue was reproduced:

• Android: App
• Android: mWeb Chrome
• iOS: App
• iOS: mWeb Safari
• iOS: mWeb Chrome
• Windows: Chrome
• MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screenshots/Videos

2025-12-19_17-42-17.mp4

Recording.2109.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~022002987048004307489
• Upwork Job ID: 2002987048004307489
• Last Price Increase: 2025-12-29
• Automatic offers:
• samranahm | Contributor | 109969284

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @JS00001

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @sakluger (Bug), see https://stackoverflow.com/c/expensify/questions/14418 for more details. Please add this bug to a GH project, as outlined in the SO.

[samranahm]

Proposal

Please re-state the problem that we are trying to solve in this issue.

Admin can pay report in Expensify Classic but not New Expensify

What is the root cause of that problem?

The isPayer function is only checking if the current user is the designated reimburser policy.achAccount.reimburser, but it isn't checking if the user has access to the bank account through the sharees list.

What changes do you think we should make in order to solve the problem?

We should modify the isPayer function to pass bankAccountList so we can check if the user is an admin and the user's email is in the bank account's sharees list (which contains all users who have access to the bank account)

    // Check if the current user has access to the bank account via sharees
    const bankAccountID = policy?.achAccount?.bankAccountID;
    const bankAccount = bankAccountID ? bankAccountList?.[bankAccountID] : null;
    const hasAccessToBankAccount = bankAccount?.accountData?.sharees?.includes(session?.email ?? '');
    
    return isReimburser || (isAdmin && hasAccessToBankAccount);
}

here

App/src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

Lines 2695 to 2704 in df5234b

	if (isPaidGroupPolicy(iouReport)) {
	if (reimbursementChoice === CONST.POLICY.REIMBURSEMENT_CHOICES.REIMBURSEMENT_YES) {
	if (!policy?.achAccount?.reimburser) {
	return isAdmin;
	}
	// If we are the reimburser and the report is approved or we are the manager then we can pay it.
	const isReimburser = session?.email === policy?.achAccount?.reimburser;
	return isReimburser;
	}

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

Reminder: Please use plain English, be brief and avoid jargon. Feel free to use images, charts or pseudo-code if necessary. Do not post large multi-line diffs or write walls of text. Do not create PRs unless you have been hired for this job.

[daledah]

Proposal

Please re-state the problem that we are trying to solve in this issue.

The option to pay the report is not shown in NewDot.

What is the root cause of that problem?

We only check the payer as the reimburser here

App/src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

Lines 2696 to 2704 in df5234b

	if (reimbursementChoice === CONST.POLICY.REIMBURSEMENT_CHOICES.REIMBURSEMENT_YES) {
	if (!policy?.achAccount?.reimburser) {
	return isAdmin;
	}
	// If we are the reimburser and the report is approved or we are the manager then we can pay it.
	const isReimburser = session?.email === policy?.achAccount?.reimburser;
	return isReimburser;
	}

What changes do you think we should make in order to solve the problem?

We should update this logic to allow an admin with access to the bank account, we can also pay it

            const isReimburser = session?.email === policy?.achAccount?.reimburser;
            if (isReimburser) {
                return true;
            }

            // If we are an admin with access to the bank account, we can also pay it.
            if (isAdmin && policy?.achAccount?.bankAccountID) {
                const bankAccount = getBankAccountFromID(policy.achAccount.bankAccountID);
                const hasAccessToBankAccount = bankAccount?.accountData?.sharees?.some((shareeEmail) => shareeEmail.toLowerCase() === session?.email?.toLowerCase()) ?? false;
                if (hasAccessToBankAccount) {
                    return true;
                }
            }

            return false;

App/src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

Lines 2696 to 2704 in df5234b

	if (reimbursementChoice === CONST.POLICY.REIMBURSEMENT_CHOICES.REIMBURSEMENT_YES) {
	if (!policy?.achAccount?.reimburser) {
	return isAdmin;
	}
	// If we are the reimburser and the report is approved or we are the manager then we can pay it.
	const isReimburser = session?.email === policy?.achAccount?.reimburser;
	return isReimburser;
	}

Note: My proposal does not duplicate the one above. bankAccountList is not accessible in this scope => cause a reference error then use getBankAccountFromID() instead and use .some() with case-insensitive comparison for email matching

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

NA

Reminder: Please use plain English, be brief and avoid jargon. Feel free to use images, charts or pseudo-code if necessary. Do not post large multi-line diffs or write walls of text. Do not create PRs unless you have been hired for this job.

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~022002987048004307489

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to Contributor-plus team member for initial proposal review - @bernhardoj (External)

[abbasifaizan70]

Proposal

Please re-state the problem that we are trying to solve in this issue.

Admins with shared bank account access cannot see the payment option in New Expensify, even though they can in Expensify Classic.

What is the root cause of that problem?

The issue is in the isPayer function in App/src/libs/ReportUtils.ts at line 2703.

When a workspace has reimbursement enabled (REIMBURSEMENT_YES) with a specific reimburser set, the function only checks if the user is the specific reimburser:

if (isPaidGroupPolicy(iouReport)) {
    if (reimbursementChoice === CONST.POLICY.REIMBURSEMENT_CHOICES.REIMBURSEMENT_YES) {
        if (!policy?.achAccount?.reimburser) {
            return isAdmin;
        }

        // If we are the reimburser and the report is approved or we are the manager then we can pay it.
        const isReimburser = session?.email === policy?.achAccount?.reimburser;
        return isReimburser;  // ❌ This excludes admins who aren't the specific reimburser
    }

According to the Share Verified Business Bank Account documentation, bank accounts can be shared with workspace admins, and they should be able to reimburse employees.

What changes do you think we should make in order to solve the problem?

Change line 2703 in App/src/libs/ReportUtils.ts to allow both the reimburser AND workspace admins to pay reports:

// Before (line 2703)
return isReimburser;

// After (line 2703)
return isReimburser || isAdmin;

Complete Context:

if (isPaidGroupPolicy(iouReport)) {
    if (reimbursementChoice === CONST.POLICY.REIMBURSEMENT_CHOICES.REIMBURSEMENT_YES) {
        if (!policy?.achAccount?.reimburser) {
            return isAdmin;
        }

        // If we are the reimburser or an admin with bank account access, we can pay the report
        const isReimburser = session?.email === policy?.achAccount?.reimburser;
        return isReimburser || isAdmin;  // ✅ Now includes admins
    }
    if (reimbursementChoice === CONST.POLICY.REIMBURSEMENT_CHOICES.REIMBURSEMENT_MANUAL || onlyShowPayElsewhere) {
        return isAdmin;
    }
    return false;
}

Test Case Added:

Add a test case to App/tests/unit/ReportUtilsTest.ts to verify that admins with bank account access can pay reports even when a different user is set as the reimburser:

it('should return true for an admin with bank account access even when a different user is set as reimburser', async () => {
    // Set a different email as the reimburser, but the current user is an admin
    await Onyx.merge(`${ONYXKEYS.COLLECTION.POLICY}1`, {
        role: CONST.POLICY.ROLE.ADMIN,
        reimbursementChoice: CONST.POLICY.REIMBURSEMENT_CHOICES.REIMBURSEMENT_YES,
        achAccount: {reimburser: 'otheruser@example.com'},
    });

    const submittedReport: Report = {
        ...createRandomReport(3, undefined),
        type: CONST.REPORT.TYPE.EXPENSE,
        stateNum: CONST.REPORT.STATE_NUM.APPROVED,
        statusNum: CONST.REPORT.STATUS_NUM.APPROVED,
        policyID: policyTest.id,
    };

    // Admin should be able to pay even though they're not the specific reimburser
    expect(isPayer({email: currentUserEmail, accountID: currentUserAccountID}, submittedReport, false)).toBe(true);
});

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

None