[Due for payment 2026-03-31] [$250] Expense - No tax rate options shown when merging expenses offline

[jponikarchuk]

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: 9.3.24-1-staging
Reproducible in staging?: Yes
Reproducible in production?: Yes
If this was caught during regression testing, add the test name, ID and link from BrowserStack: #71244
Email or phone of affected tester (no customers): N/A
Issue reported by: Applause Internal Team
Bug source: Pull Request QA execution
Device used: Windows 11, Chrome
App Component: Other

Action Performed:

Preconditions:
User has a workspace with tax enabled, with at least 2 different tax rates higher than %0.

1. Go to https://staging.new.expensify.com/
2. Go offline.
3. Create 1 expense in the WS with a tax rate (value higher than %0)
4. Create 1 expense in the WS with a different tax rate.
5. Open any expense, then go to More > Merge
6. Select the other expense.

Expected Result:

When expenses are merged offline, the system should display the options to select a tax rate.

Actual Result:

When merging expenses offline, the tax rate options are not displayed.

Workaround:

Unknown

Platforms:

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

Screenshots/Videos

1.mp4

View all open jobs on GitHub

Issue Owner

Current Issue Owner: @Krishna2323

Upwork Automation - Do Not Edit

• Upwork Job URL: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~022024915158839164910
• Upwork Job ID: 2024915158839164910
• Last Price Increase: 2026-02-20

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to Contributor-plus team member for initial proposal review - @Krishna2323 (External)

[melvin-bot]

Triggered auto assignment to @kadiealexander (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.

[melvin-bot]

Job added to Upwork: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~022024915158839164910

[annaweber830]

Proposal

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

When two offline expenses with different tax rates are merged, the merge-details step does not show tax rate choices, so users cannot pick which tax configuration should be kept. The merge flow should still present tax options offline, just like online.

What is the root cause of that problem?

App/src/libs/MergeTransactionUtils.ts

Lines 224 to 314 in a8f2d3a

	for (const field of getMergeFields(targetTransaction)) {
	const targetValue = getMergeFieldValue(targetTransactionDetails, targetTransaction, field);
	const sourceValue = getMergeFieldValue(sourceTransactionDetails, sourceTransaction, field);
	const isTargetValueEmpty = isEmptyMergeValue(targetValue);
	const isSourceValueEmpty = isEmptyMergeValue(sourceValue);
	if (field === 'amount') {
	// If target transaction is a card or split expense, always preserve the target transaction's amount and currency
	// Card takes precedence over split expense
	// See https://github.com/Expensify/App/issues/68189#issuecomment-3167156907
	const isTargetExpenseSplit = isExpenseSplit(targetTransaction);
	if (isFromCreditCardImport(targetTransaction) || isTargetExpenseSplit) {
	mergeableData[field] = targetValue;
	mergeableData.currency = getCurrency(targetTransaction);
	if (isTargetExpenseSplit) {
	mergeableData.originalTransactionID = targetTransaction?.comment?.originalTransactionID;
	}
	continue;
	}
	// When one of the selected expenses has a $0 amount, we should automatically select the non-zero amount.
	if (targetValue === 0 || sourceValue === 0) {
	mergeableData[field] = sourceValue === 0 ? targetValue : sourceValue;
	mergeableData.currency = sourceValue === 0 ? getCurrency(targetTransaction) : getCurrency(sourceTransaction);
	continue;
	}
	// Check for currency differences when values equal
	if (targetValue === sourceValue && getCurrency(targetTransaction) !== getCurrency(sourceTransaction)) {
	conflictFields.push(field);
	continue;
	}
	// When the values are the same and the currencies are the same, we should merge the values
	if (targetValue === sourceValue && getCurrency(targetTransaction) === getCurrency(sourceTransaction)) {
	mergeableData[field] = targetValue;
	mergeableData.currency = getCurrency(targetTransaction);
	continue;
	}
	}
	// We allow user to select unreported report
	if (field === 'reportID') {
	if (targetValue === sourceValue) {
	const updatedValues = getMergeFieldUpdatedValues({transaction: targetTransaction, field, fieldValue: SafeString(targetValue), searchReports});
	Object.assign(mergeableData, updatedValues);
	} else {
	conflictFields.push(field);
	}
	continue;
	}
	// Use the reimbursable flag coming from card transactions automatically
	// See https://github.com/Expensify/App/issues/69598
	if (field === 'reimbursable' && isFromCreditCardImport(targetTransaction)) {
	mergeableData[field] = targetValue;
	continue;
	}
	if (field === 'attendees') {
	const targetAttendeeLogins = ((targetValue as Attendee[] | undefined)?.map((attendee) => attendee.login ?? attendee.email) ?? []).sort(localeCompare);
	const sourceAttendeeLogins = ((sourceValue as Attendee[] | undefined)?.map((attendee) => attendee.login ?? attendee.email) ?? []).sort(localeCompare);
	if (isTargetValueEmpty || isSourceValueEmpty || deepEqual(targetAttendeeLogins, sourceAttendeeLogins)) {
	mergeableData[field] = isTargetValueEmpty ? sourceValue : targetValue;
	} else {
	conflictFields.push(field);
	}
	continue;
	}
	if (isTargetValueEmpty || isSourceValueEmpty || targetValue === sourceValue) {
	if (field === 'taxValue' && isTargetValueEmpty) {
	continue;
	}
	const selectedTransaction = isTargetValueEmpty ? sourceTransaction : targetTransaction;
	const selectedFieldValue = isTargetValueEmpty ? sourceValue : targetValue;
	const selectedPolicy = isTargetValueEmpty ? sourceTransactionPolicy : targetTransactionPolicy;
	const updatedValues = getMergeFieldUpdatedValues({
	transaction: selectedTransaction,
	field,
	fieldValue: selectedFieldValue as MergeTransaction[typeof field],
	mergeTransaction: mergeableData as MergeTransaction,
	searchReports,
	policy: selectedPolicy,
	});
	Object.assign(mergeableData, updatedValues);
	} else {
	conflictFields.push(field);
	}

getMergeableDataAndConflictFields() determines whether the tax field is conflicting by reading taxValue. If the target tax value is empty, it skips tax conflict handling entirely. In offline-created expenses, tax metadata is commonly represented by taxCode/taxAmount, while taxValue may be unset, so two different tax rates are treated as non-conflicting and no tax selector is rendered.

App/src/libs/actions/IOU/index.ts

Lines 3507 to 3523 in a8f2d3a

	transactionParams: {
	amount: isExpenseReport(iouReport) ? -amount : amount,
	distance,
	...(modifiedAmount !== undefined && {modifiedAmount: isExpenseReport(iouReport) ? -modifiedAmount : modifiedAmount}),
	currency,
	reportID: iouReport.reportID,
	comment,
	attendees,
	created,
	merchant,
	receipt,
	category,
	tag,
	taxCode,
	source,
	taxAmount: isExpenseReport(iouReport) ? -(taxAmount ?? 0) : taxAmount,
	billable,

// Merge conflict detection path
if (isTargetValueEmpty || isSourceValueEmpty || targetValue === sourceValue) {
    if (field === 'taxValue' && isTargetValueEmpty) {
        continue;
    }
    const selectedTransaction = isTargetValueEmpty ? sourceTransaction : targetTransaction;
    const selectedFieldValue = isTargetValueEmpty ? sourceValue : targetValue;
    const selectedPolicy = isTargetValueEmpty ? sourceTransactionPolicy : targetTransactionPolicy;
    const updatedValues = getMergeFieldUpdatedValues({
        transaction: selectedTransaction,
        field,
        fieldValue: selectedFieldValue as MergeTransaction[typeof field],
        mergeTransaction: mergeableData as MergeTransaction,
        searchReports,
        policy: selectedPolicy,
    });
    Object.assign(mergeableData, updatedValues);
}

// Offline optimistic transaction payload carries taxCode/taxAmount
transactionParams: {
    // ...
    taxCode,
    taxAmount: isExpenseReport(iouReport) ? -(taxAmount ?? 0) : taxAmount,
    // ...
}

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

App/src/libs/MergeTransactionUtils.ts

Lines 224 to 314 in a8f2d3a

	for (const field of getMergeFields(targetTransaction)) {
	const targetValue = getMergeFieldValue(targetTransactionDetails, targetTransaction, field);
	const sourceValue = getMergeFieldValue(sourceTransactionDetails, sourceTransaction, field);
	const isTargetValueEmpty = isEmptyMergeValue(targetValue);
	const isSourceValueEmpty = isEmptyMergeValue(sourceValue);
	if (field === 'amount') {
	// If target transaction is a card or split expense, always preserve the target transaction's amount and currency
	// Card takes precedence over split expense
	// See https://github.com/Expensify/App/issues/68189#issuecomment-3167156907
	const isTargetExpenseSplit = isExpenseSplit(targetTransaction);
	if (isFromCreditCardImport(targetTransaction) || isTargetExpenseSplit) {
	mergeableData[field] = targetValue;
	mergeableData.currency = getCurrency(targetTransaction);
	if (isTargetExpenseSplit) {
	mergeableData.originalTransactionID = targetTransaction?.comment?.originalTransactionID;
	}
	continue;
	}
	// When one of the selected expenses has a $0 amount, we should automatically select the non-zero amount.
	if (targetValue === 0 || sourceValue === 0) {
	mergeableData[field] = sourceValue === 0 ? targetValue : sourceValue;
	mergeableData.currency = sourceValue === 0 ? getCurrency(targetTransaction) : getCurrency(sourceTransaction);
	continue;
	}
	// Check for currency differences when values equal
	if (targetValue === sourceValue && getCurrency(targetTransaction) !== getCurrency(sourceTransaction)) {
	conflictFields.push(field);
	continue;
	}
	// When the values are the same and the currencies are the same, we should merge the values
	if (targetValue === sourceValue && getCurrency(targetTransaction) === getCurrency(sourceTransaction)) {
	mergeableData[field] = targetValue;
	mergeableData.currency = getCurrency(targetTransaction);
	continue;
	}
	}
	// We allow user to select unreported report
	if (field === 'reportID') {
	if (targetValue === sourceValue) {
	const updatedValues = getMergeFieldUpdatedValues({transaction: targetTransaction, field, fieldValue: SafeString(targetValue), searchReports});
	Object.assign(mergeableData, updatedValues);
	} else {
	conflictFields.push(field);
	}
	continue;
	}
	// Use the reimbursable flag coming from card transactions automatically
	// See https://github.com/Expensify/App/issues/69598
	if (field === 'reimbursable' && isFromCreditCardImport(targetTransaction)) {
	mergeableData[field] = targetValue;
	continue;
	}
	if (field === 'attendees') {
	const targetAttendeeLogins = ((targetValue as Attendee[] | undefined)?.map((attendee) => attendee.login ?? attendee.email) ?? []).sort(localeCompare);
	const sourceAttendeeLogins = ((sourceValue as Attendee[] | undefined)?.map((attendee) => attendee.login ?? attendee.email) ?? []).sort(localeCompare);
	if (isTargetValueEmpty || isSourceValueEmpty || deepEqual(targetAttendeeLogins, sourceAttendeeLogins)) {
	mergeableData[field] = isTargetValueEmpty ? sourceValue : targetValue;
	} else {
	conflictFields.push(field);
	}
	continue;
	}
	if (isTargetValueEmpty || isSourceValueEmpty || targetValue === sourceValue) {
	if (field === 'taxValue' && isTargetValueEmpty) {
	continue;
	}
	const selectedTransaction = isTargetValueEmpty ? sourceTransaction : targetTransaction;
	const selectedFieldValue = isTargetValueEmpty ? sourceValue : targetValue;
	const selectedPolicy = isTargetValueEmpty ? sourceTransactionPolicy : targetTransactionPolicy;
	const updatedValues = getMergeFieldUpdatedValues({
	transaction: selectedTransaction,
	field,
	fieldValue: selectedFieldValue as MergeTransaction[typeof field],
	mergeTransaction: mergeableData as MergeTransaction,
	searchReports,
	policy: selectedPolicy,
	});
	Object.assign(mergeableData, updatedValues);
	} else {
	conflictFields.push(field);
	}

Use taxCode as a fallback comparator when taxValue is empty, so offline merges still detect tax conflicts. Also keep tax amount stable when selecting a tax option that has no taxValue by falling back to the selected transaction’s existing taxAmount.

Current code:

if (isTargetValueEmpty || isSourceValueEmpty || targetValue === sourceValue) {
    if (field === 'taxValue' && isTargetValueEmpty) {
        continue;
    }
    const selectedTransaction = isTargetValueEmpty ? sourceTransaction : targetTransaction;
    const selectedFieldValue = isTargetValueEmpty ? sourceValue : targetValue;
    const selectedPolicy = isTargetValueEmpty ? sourceTransactionPolicy : targetTransactionPolicy;
    const updatedValues = getMergeFieldUpdatedValues({
        transaction: selectedTransaction,
        field,
        fieldValue: selectedFieldValue as MergeTransaction[typeof field],
        mergeTransaction: mergeableData as MergeTransaction,
        searchReports,
        policy: selectedPolicy,
    });
    Object.assign(mergeableData, updatedValues);
}

if (field === 'taxValue') {
    updatedValues.taxCode = transaction?.taxCode;
    updatedValues.taxName = getTaxName(policy, transaction) ?? transaction?.taxValue ?? '';
    updatedValues.taxPolicyID = policy?.id;
    if (mergeTransaction?.amount) {
        updatedValues.taxAmount = convertToBackendAmount(calculateTaxAmount(transaction?.taxValue, mergeTransaction.amount, getCurrencyDecimals(getCurrency(transaction))));
    }
}

Updated code:

if (field === 'taxValue') {
    const targetTaxCompareValue = targetTransaction?.taxValue ?? targetTransaction?.taxCode;
    const sourceTaxCompareValue = sourceTransaction?.taxValue ?? sourceTransaction?.taxCode;
    const isTargetTaxCompareEmpty = isEmptyMergeValue(targetTaxCompareValue);
    const isSourceTaxCompareEmpty = isEmptyMergeValue(sourceTaxCompareValue);

    if (isTargetTaxCompareEmpty && isSourceTaxCompareEmpty) {
        continue;
    }

    if (targetTaxCompareValue !== sourceTaxCompareValue) {
        conflictFields.push(field);
        continue;
    }
}

if (isTargetValueEmpty || isSourceValueEmpty || targetValue === sourceValue) {
    const selectedTransaction = isTargetValueEmpty ? sourceTransaction : targetTransaction;
    const selectedFieldValue = isTargetValueEmpty ? sourceValue : targetValue;
    const selectedPolicy = isTargetValueEmpty ? sourceTransactionPolicy : targetTransactionPolicy;
    const updatedValues = getMergeFieldUpdatedValues({
        transaction: selectedTransaction,
        field,
        fieldValue: selectedFieldValue as MergeTransaction[typeof field],
        mergeTransaction: mergeableData as MergeTransaction,
        searchReports,
        policy: selectedPolicy,
    });
    Object.assign(mergeableData, updatedValues);
}

if (field === 'taxValue') {
    updatedValues.taxCode = transaction?.taxCode;
    updatedValues.taxName = getTaxName(policy, transaction) ?? transaction?.taxValue ?? '';
    updatedValues.taxPolicyID = policy?.id;

    if (mergeTransaction?.amount) {
        if (transaction?.taxValue !== undefined) {
            updatedValues.taxAmount = convertToBackendAmount(calculateTaxAmount(transaction.taxValue, mergeTransaction.amount, getCurrencyDecimals(getCurrency(transaction))));
        } else {
            updatedValues.taxAmount = transaction?.taxAmount;
        }
    }
}

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

Another option is to always persist taxValue when creating offline expenses and rely on the existing merge logic unchanged. I did not choose that because it touches broader request-creation flows, while the merge-layer fallback is narrower and directly addresses this regression.

[MelvinBot]

Proposal

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

When merging expenses offline, the tax rate options are not displayed in the merge UI. The user creates two expenses with different tax rates while offline, then tries to merge them via More > Merge. The tax rate selection field that should appear for conflict resolution is completely missing.

What is the root cause of that problem?

The merge flow compares transactions using transaction.taxValue (a percentage string like "20%"), but this field is never set on optimistically-created (offline) transactions.

When an expense is created offline, buildOptimisticTransaction at src/libs/TransactionUtils/index.ts:531-532 only stores taxCode and taxAmount on the transaction — NOT taxValue. The taxValue field is only populated later by the backend response or by explicit edit operations.

In the merge flow, getMergeFieldValue at src/libs/MergeTransactionUtils.ts:151-152 reads transaction.taxValue directly, which returns undefined for both offline-created transactions. Then, the skip logic at src/libs/MergeTransactionUtils.ts:297-298 checks:

if (field === 'taxValue' && isTargetValueEmpty) {
    continue;
}

Since isTargetValueEmpty is true (undefined is treated as empty), this continue statement executes, and the taxValue field is never added to either conflictFields (for user resolution) or mergeableData (for auto-merge). The tax rate option simply vanishes from the merge UI.

Even though both transactions have different taxCode values (correctly stored during creation), the merge flow never detects this because it compares taxValue (undefined for both), not taxCode.

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

Modify getMergeFieldValue in src/libs/MergeTransactionUtils.ts so that for the taxValue field, it derives the tax percentage from transaction.taxCode + policy data when transaction.taxValue is not directly available. The infrastructure already exists: getTaxName and related functions in TransactionUtils can resolve tax info from taxCode + policy.taxRates, and the policy data is available offline in Onyx.

Specifically, in src/libs/MergeTransactionUtils.ts:151-153, the getMergeFieldValue function should be updated to accept a policy parameter and use getTaxValue(policy, transaction) or derive the percentage from policy.taxRates.taxes[transaction.taxCode] when transaction.taxValue is undefined. This would also require threading the policy through from getMergeableDataAndConflictFields (which already has both policies available at line 215-216).

Alternatively, buildOptimisticTransaction could be updated to also set taxValue when taxCode is provided, deriving the percentage from the policy at creation time. This would fix the merge flow and any other code that reads transaction.taxValue.

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

1. Only fixing the skip logic at line 297-298: Removing the special taxValue skip would not solve the problem because even if the field isn't skipped, both values would still be undefined (equal), so the field would be auto-merged with an empty value rather than appearing as a conflict.

2. Setting taxValue in buildOptimisticTransaction: This is a valid alternative that would fix the issue at the source. When the policy is available during transaction creation, the percentage string could be derived from policy.taxRates.taxes[taxCode].value. However, buildOptimisticTransaction currently doesn't always have access to the policy object, so this may require additional plumbing.

---

Next Steps for Contributor+ team: Reply with @MelvinBot implement this to create a draft PR, or @MelvinBot <your feedback> to refine this analysis.

[btkcodedev]

Proposal

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

When users merge two workspace expenses while offline, the merge flow does not show tax-rate selection options, so users cannot choose which expense tax rate to keep.

What is the root cause of that problem?

The offline merge conflict model does not include taxCode, so tax never becomes a selectable merge field.

• src/libs/MergeTransactionUtils.ts:39

const MERGE_FIELDS = ['amount', 'merchant', 'created', 'category', 'tag', 'taxCode', ...] as const;

Before this fix, taxCode was missing from this array, and conflict detection only evaluates fields listed in MERGE_FIELDS (src/libs/MergeTransactionUtils.ts:216-300).

A second issue is tax coupling: when choosing a tax code, the related taxAmount must follow the selected transaction.

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

Rather than above two proposals, this fix needs handling of both the taxCode and tax coupling issue.

Add tax into merge conflict detection and propagate selected tax data through preview and merge request payload.

• Include tax as a merge field + label.
  • src/libs/MergeTransactionUtils.ts:39
  • src/libs/MergeTransactionUtils.ts:56-68

taxCode: 'iou.taxRate',

• Avoid creating meaningless empty tax merge data when both transactions have no tax code.
  • src/libs/MergeTransactionUtils.ts:285-287

if (field === 'taxCode' && isTargetValueEmpty && isSourceValueEmpty) {
    continue;
}

• When user selects a tax code, also carry selected transaction’s taxAmount.
  • src/libs/MergeTransactionUtils.ts:568-570

if (field === 'taxCode') {
    updatedValues.taxAmount = transaction?.taxAmount ?? 0;
}

• Ensure merged preview reflects selected tax fields.
  • src/libs/MergeTransactionUtils.ts:353-354

...(Object.hasOwn(mergeTransaction, 'taxCode') && {taxCode: mergeTransaction.taxCode}),
...(Object.hasOwn(mergeTransaction, 'taxAmount') && {taxAmount: mergeTransaction.taxAmount}),

• Ensure final merge update includes tax amount when tax code changed and sends both fields in request params.
  • src/libs/actions/MergeTransaction.ts:228-232
  • src/libs/actions/MergeTransaction.ts:354-355

if (Object.hasOwn(filteredTransactionChanges, 'taxCode')) {
    if (typeof mergeTransaction.taxAmount === 'number') {
        filteredTransactionChanges.taxAmount = mergeTransaction.taxAmount;
    }
}
...
taxCode: mergeTransaction.taxCode,
taxAmount: mergeTransaction.taxAmount,

• Update types to support merge tax fields.

  • src/types/onyx/MergeTransaction.ts:35-39
  • src/libs/API/parameters/MergeTransactionParams.ts:26-30

• Add regression coverage.

  • tests/unit/MergeTransactionUtilsTest.ts:188-194
  • tests/unit/MergeTransactionUtilsTest.ts:575-592
  • tests/unit/MergeTransactionUtilsTest.ts:883-893
  • tests/unit/MergeTransactionUtilsTest.ts:1067-1079

What alternative solutions did you explore? (Optional)

None