[Due for payment 2026-05-26] [$250] New Feature: Single Non-Reimbursable Expense Reports Show Redundant Rows Above Total

[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: 9.3.66-1
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: @shawnborton
Slack conversation (hyperlinked to channel name): #Expensify Product

Action Performed:

1. Create a report with: A single expense and mark it as non-reimbursable
2. Navigate to Spend > Reports
3. Open the report
4. Observe the section above the total

Expected Result:

The UI should be simplified by:
Removing redundant rows
Displaying the information inline as:
“Amount · Non-reimbursable”

Actual Result:

Two extra rows are displayed above the total (Reimbursable and Non-reimbursable)
Results in unnecessary vertical space

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

View all open jobs on GitHub

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @mallenexpensify

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~022051365707056487272
• Upwork Job ID: 2051365707056487272
• Last Price Increase: 2026-05-11

[melvin-bot]

Current assignee @shawnborton is eligible for the NewFeature assigner, not assigning anyone new.

[mukhrr]

🚨 Edited by proposal-police: This proposal was edited at 2026-05-04 18:26:51 UTC.

Proposal

What is the root cause of that problem?

There are two contributing factors that produce the redundant rows shown in the issue:

1. Both breakdown rows share one visibility flag. In MoneyReportView.tsx#L249-L253 the Reimbursable (outOfPocket) and Non-reimbursable (companySpend) rows are both gated on !!nonReimbursableSpend:

{label: 'cardTransactions.outOfPocket',  value: formattedOutOfPocketAmount,  show: !!nonReimbursableSpend},
{label: 'cardTransactions.companySpend', value: formattedCompanySpendAmount, show: !!nonReimbursableSpend},

So when a single non-reimbursable expense exists, you get a redundant Reimbursable $0.00 row plus a Non-reimbursable $X row that just restates the total.

2. The transaction's reimbursable status isn't surfaced inline. In MoneyRequestView.tsx#L453 the Amount field's description is built up from a chain of dot-separated suffixes (· Original, · Canceled, · Approved, · Converted, etc.) at L545-L561, but there's no branch that adds · Non-reimbursable, so the only way to see a transaction's classification is via the breakdown rows that we're removing.

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

1. In MoneyReportView.tsx, decouple the row visibility conditions so each row only renders when there's a genuine reimbursable / non-reimbursable split:

-                                    {label: 'cardTransactions.outOfPocket', value: formattedOutOfPocketAmount, show: !!nonReimbursableSpend},
-                                    {label: 'cardTransactions.companySpend', value: formattedCompanySpendAmount, show: !!nonReimbursableSpend},
+                                    {label: 'cardTransactions.outOfPocket',  value: formattedOutOfPocketAmount,  show: !!reimbursableSpend && !!nonReimbursableSpend},
+                                    {label: 'cardTransactions.companySpend', value: formattedCompanySpendAmount, show: !!reimbursableSpend && !!nonReimbursableSpend},

And update shouldShowBreakdown at L99 to use the same gate so the wrapper isn't rendered for the all-non-reimbursable case:

const shouldShowBreakdown = (!!reimbursableSpend && !!nonReimbursableSpend) || !!billableTotal || (!!taxTotal && isTaxEnabled);

2. In MoneyRequestView.tsx, append · Non-reimbursable to the Amount field description alongside the existing dot-separated suffixes (matching the design Amount · Non-reimbursable from the issue):

     if (shouldShowConvertedAmount) {
         amountDescription += ` ${CONST.DOT_SEPARATOR} ${translate('common.converted')} ${convertToDisplayString(transactionConvertedAmount, moneyRequestReport?.currency)}`;
     }
+    const isCurrentTransactionReimbursable = updatedTransaction?.reimbursable ?? !!transactionReimbursable;
+    if (!isCurrentTransactionReimbursable) {
+        amountDescription += ` ${CONST.DOT_SEPARATOR} ${Str.UCFirst(translate('iou.nonReimbursable'))}`;
+    }

Str is already imported and the iou.nonReimbursable translation key already exists (en.ts#L1603), so no new translations are required.

Together, this collapses the three rows into one inline label for a single non-reimbursable expense, while mixed reports keep their existing breakdown.

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

• Gate purely on transaction count (e.g., transactions.length === 1). Rejected because the redundancy isn't strictly about "one expense" — a 5-expense report that's entirely non-reimbursable hits the same Reimbursable $0 problem, and the spend-split gate fixes both with one rule.
• Hide only the Reimbursable $0 row and keep the Non-reimbursable row. Cleaner than today, but the Non-reimbursable row still restates the total amount on a second line — putting the classification on the per-transaction Amount field is closer to the design in the issue and saves the row entirely.
• Append · Non-reimbursable to the report Total label instead. I tried this first, but the issue's screenshot shows the Amount field (which is rendered by MoneyRequestView, not MoneyReportView), so the inline label belongs there.

Result:

[melvin-bot]

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

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~022051365707056487272

[MelvinBot]

Proposal

What is the root cause of that problem?

In MoneyReportView.tsx:252-253, both the "Reimbursable" and "Non-reimbursable" breakdown rows use the same show condition: !!nonReimbursableSpend. This means whenever any non-reimbursable expense exists, both rows appear — even when reimbursableSpend is 0 and there's nothing meaningful to break down.

The shouldShowBreakdown gate (nonReimbursableSpend || !!billableTotal || (!!taxTotal && isTaxEnabled)) triggers the breakdown section, but there's no further logic to suppress individual rows when only one expense type exists.

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

In MoneyReportView.tsx, when the report contains only one type of expense (all reimbursable or all non-reimbursable), skip the breakdown rows entirely and instead append the type label (e.g., "Non-reimbursable") inline next to the total amount on the existing total row.

Specifically:

1. Add a condition: if nonReimbursableSpend > 0 && reimbursableSpend === 0 (or vice versa), set a flag like shouldShowInlineLabel and skip rendering the "outOfPocket"/"companySpend" pair in the breakdown array.
2. On the total row (around line 212-247), when shouldShowInlineLabel is true, render the total as "$Amount · Non-reimbursable" (matching the design shown in the issue screenshots).
3. Keep the existing two-row breakdown for reports that have both reimbursable and non-reimbursable expenses, since the breakdown is useful there.

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

• Simply hiding the $0.00 row (e.g., only showing "Non-reimbursable" and hiding "Reimbursable: $0.00") — this reduces clutter but still uses a separate row rather than the inline display requested.
• Moving the label into the total row's subtitle instead of appending it inline — viable, but the issue screenshots explicitly show the inline "Amount · Non-reimbursable" format.

---

Next Steps for Contributor+ team: Reply with @MelvinBot implement this to create a draft PR, @MelvinBot <your feedback> to refine this analysis, or explain why you are rejecting Melvin's proposal.

[dilshodmackbook-sketch]

🚫 Duplicated proposal withdrawn by 🤖 ProposalPolice.