rom the perspective of the check issuer, there should be no journal entry to record the reduction in cash until the date listed on the check. From the perspective of the recipient, there should be no entry to record the increase in cash until the date listed on the check. Thus, the date on the check effectively postpones the underlying accounting transaction.
For example, ABC International receives a $500 check payment from a customer for an unpaid invoice on April 30. The check is post dated to May 15. ABC should not record the cash receipt until May 15, nor should it reduce the related accounts receivable balance until May 15. Thus, the post dated check has no impact on the financial statements of ABC International until the date listed on the check.
Realistically, the recipient of a post dated check may never notice that the check has been post dated, and so will record and deposit it at once. The bank is also unlikely to notice the date on the check. In this situation, the check is considered a negotiable instrument, irrespective of the date, and it is likely that the recipient will receive cash from the bank prior to the date on the check. In such a situation, it is allowable for the check recipient to record a post dated check upon receipt of the check.
From the perspective of the payer, the best way to ensure that funds are not released early is to notify the bank not to release funds against this check any earlier than the date stated on the check.
Auditors do not like to see post dated checks, since it implies that the payer is short on cash, and is attempting to pay bills later than it should. If an auditor sees an ongoing pattern of check post dating, there would be an inclination to delve more deeply into company finances, and perhaps state a going concern issue in the audit opinion that accompanies the financial statements.