Accounts Receivable
405 deficiencies · 2 led to a wrong opinion · 12 on a significant-risk area
How audits fail in Accounts Receivable
The recurring ways firms fell short. Click any one to read the real inspection findings.
- Controls not identified or tested78
The firm didn't identify and/or test controls it needed to rely on for the account or assertion.
2 significant risk - IT general controls not tested73
The firm relied on automated or IT-dependent controls but didn't adequately test the underlying IT general controls (e.g. change management).
- Little or no substantive testing54
The firm performed little or no substantive testing over the account, disclosure, or assertion.
1 wrong opinion4 significant risk - Confirmations / alternative procedures52
The firm didn't obtain confirmations, or didn't perform sufficient alternative procedures when confirmations weren't returned.
1 significant risk - Accuracy/completeness of client data not tested44
The firm used issuer-prepared schedules, reports, or system data without testing that they were accurate and complete.
3 significant risk - Sample too small or unsupported41
The sample the firm tested was too small, or the basis for the sample size didn't support the conclusion.
1 wrong opinion - Management review controls not fully evaluated24
The firm tested a management review control but didn't evaluate the specific procedures the reviewer performed, or the control's precision.
- Estimate assumptions not evaluated15
The firm didn't sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumptions behind an estimate.
2 significant risk - Accounting or disclosure treatment not evaluated9
The firm didn't evaluate whether the accounting or disclosures conformed with GAAP, or didn't identify departures from GAAP or omitted disclosures.
- Estimate method, model, or data not evaluated7
The firm didn't evaluate the method, model, or underlying data the issuer used to develop an estimate or fair value.
- Other testing deficiency3
A deficiency that doesn't fall into one of the more specific patterns above.
- Journal entries / fraud procedures3
Deficiencies in testing journal entries or in responding to identified fraud risks.
- Risk assessment2
The firm didn't properly identify, assess, or revise its risks of material misstatement.