Carrying "Other" balances from year to year

[quicky]

As to the example of a stake taking funds for multi-stake activities: I fail to see why you would be collecting funds from another stake for an event 4 years out. Stakes retain unused funds for future budget expenses, so an individual stake keeping a reserve (in their own funds) for a future expected expense shouldn't be a problem. I would personally feel very uneasy about transfering large amounts of Budget (i.e. consecrated) funds to an AMFA account each year for this type of activity until actual expenses and allocations have been established.

As I mentioned earlier under another heading, our stake accrues funds over a 4 year period in an AMFA account for a youth trek. It is done on a 4-year basis which allows every young man and young woman the opportunity to go 1 time. The trek is quite expensive when you consider feeding 150+ youth and adult leaders for almost a week, the period clothing which they make but the stake furnishes plans and materials for, rental of handcarts, etc., etc. Accrual over time is much easier to budget for than taking a lump sum from the stake budget account every 4 years. It could be done that way but what difference does it really make?

Ditto our multi-stake youth conference. I never said nor implied that we as a stake were an accrual account holder for various stakes. They pay their own freight as we do, in their own manner. We will cut a check for whichever stake hosts the conference when the conference is over. How that concept got read in I have no clue. KQ

[johnshaw]

We have a very similar process in our stake, our 4 year cycle includes a couple of smaller Youth Conferences, or conferences that are held locally, one that is held at a university campus which is a mid-tier expense, and one LARGE activity, for us it's a Nauvoo trip. We keep back enough money for the stake to cover these expenses over 4 years, but we keep it in the budget rather than moving the money to an Other account expense.

[quicky]

Back to what started this in the first place, an advantage of keeping an accrual account in AMFA: Other is that it does pay interest! Which is what led down this rabbit hole to begin. On further thought, after suggesting that the 'Other' column was an artifact of the old system, it does offer a way to take non-tax deductible monies and segregate them for IRS purposes. That is really the only benefit to them as I see it unless they are used for accrual purposes. KQ

[aebrown]

Back to what started this in the first place, an advantage of keeping an accrual account in AMFA: Other is that it does pay interest! Which is what led down this rabbit hole to begin. On further thought, after suggesting that the 'Other' column was an artifact of the old system, it does offer a way to take non-tax deductible monies and segregate them for IRS purposes. That is really the only benefit to them as I see it unless they are used for accrual purposes. KQ

Which is a good point, but makes me wonder what is so special about Other and Ward Missionary anymore. They have always accrued interest because we carried actual balances in those categories. Since the advent of CUBS, we now carry an actual balance in Budget as well. Why aren't we accruing interest in Budget now?

[johnshaw]

Agreed, I hadn't thought about that Interest until now.

[russellhltn]

Since the advent of CUBS, we now carry an actual balance in Budget as well. Why aren't we accruing interest in Budget now?

I guess the difference is where the funds come from. With Ward Missionary and Other, it comes from the local members. With Budget, it comes from the church. One could look at it as budget funds are allocated as "real" funds, but belong to the church.

[wrigjef]

Was the specific question regarding contributions to summer camps addressed? So in your stake a young man cannot contribute to next year's summer camp until January 1st of the year of the summer camp? What was the recommended procedure to accommodate such a situation?

No the specific question was not addressed by the regional auditor trainer. However if a ward in our stake faced this particular circumstance, a ward clerk would request that the member hang on to the donation until after the beginning of the year. I personally do not ever see this happening, paying for a summer camp 6 months in advance.

[wrigjef]

Say you have an approved AMFA activity in January, like a temple trip. Under the prohibition described above, the collection can't begin until Jan. 1, lest the AMFA account "carry over funds." Even though the funds are clearly identified for a specific purpose, the local policy forbids it. In such a case, what objective does the policy fulfill? If the only reason to not carry over a balance is so that your balances don't carry over, I think it would be a good idea to think carefully about the policy.

In my expeience, as long as the AMFA funds have a clearly designated purpose that is within the policies outlined by the handbook, there is no need to worry about zeroing the account out at year end. If you know of something in the handbook, financial training, or audit instructions that differs, I'd be glad to reconsider. That being said, if the Stake President or Bishop in their respective roles as guardians of the Lord's funds want to clear the accounts at year end, that's their call. But nothing I've seen tells me that it is an audit requirement.

The auditor Trainer did not say the carrying other balances over was an audit exception (he did not say they weren't either) but he did say that we should take into account the spirit and common sense in using the category appropriately. The temple trip example would never be an issue for us but if there were a legitimate AMFA in January, we would certainly let it carry-over and happen. In such a case, as stake assistant for finances my focus would be on wards clearly identifying and tracking funds so we can have clean year end audits.

[wrigjef]

Could he have possibly been saying that the Other account isn't supposed to carry forward a balance from one event to the next? In the case of a summer camp, I can understand that the balance should be zeroed out from one year's camp to the next, but that's not the same as saying it has to be zero at the end of the calendar year.

Certainly the clear direction was that these accounts were not designed to have funds carry from one event to another (one years camp should be paid for before funds are donated for the next one. In reality how many cases are there where AMFA's need to stay on the books over a year end. Most (in our stake) are geared for the summer. As stated in another response, the spirit of discretion and guidance of a priesthood leader always come into play, but we in this stake are highly motivated to have completely zeroed out AMFA balances and clean year end audits whenever possible.