Explorer

The firm received electronic responses to its accounts receivable confirmation requests. The firm did not consider performing procedures to address the risks associated with electronic responses such as verifying the source and contents of the confirmation responses. (AS 2310.29)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm sent positive confirmation requests to certain customers. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform alternative procedures for certain positive confirmation requests for which it did not receive a response. (AS 2310.31) Unrelated to our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for accounts receivable and concluded that a material misstatement existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently corrected this misstatement in a restatement of its financial statements and the firm revised and reissued its report on the financial statements.

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm sent positive confirmation requests to certain customers. The following deficiencies were identified: · For certain confirmations that were returned with exceptions the firm did not evaluate the nature of those exceptions. Further for certain other confirmations that were returned with exceptions the firm did not perform alternative procedures that provided sufficient appropriate audit evidence that recorded amounts of accounts receivable existed and were accurate at the confirmation date. (AS 2310.33) Unrelated to our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for accounts receivable and concluded that a material misstatement existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently corrected this misstatement in a restatement of its financial statements and the firm revised and reissued its report on the financial statements.

To substantively test accounts receivable the firm sent confirmation requests for a selection of accounts receivable that met certain criteria. The firm did not perform any procedures to test the remaining population of accounts receivable. (AS 1105.27)

To test accounts receivable the firm sent confirmation requests either by mail or electronic mail to a selection of the issuer's customers that met certain criteria. The following deficiencies were identified: • The firm received electronic responses to certain of its confirmation requests. The firm did not consider performing procedures to address the risks associated with electronic responses such as verifying the source and contents of the confirmation responses. (AS 2310.29)

To test accounts receivable the firm sent confirmation requests either by mail or electronic mail to a selection of the issuer's customers that met certain criteria. The following deficiencies were identified: • The firm did not perform alternative procedures for positive confirmation requests for which it did not receive a response. (AS 2310.31)

To test accounts receivable the firm sent confirmation requests either by mail or electronic mail to a selection of the issuer's customers that met certain criteria. The following deficiencies were identified: • The firm did not evaluate the nature of exceptions in returned confirmations. (AS 2310.33)

To test accounts receivable the firm sent confirmation requests either by mail or electronic mail to a selection of the issuer's customers that met certain criteria. The following deficiencies were identified: • The firm did not perform any procedures to test the remaining population of accounts receivable that was not included in the confirmation selections. (AS 1105.27)

The firm received electronic responses to its accounts receivable confirmation requests. The firm did not consider performing procedures to address the risks associated with electronic responses such as verifying the source and contents of the confirmation responses. (AS 2310.29)

The firm received electronic responses to its accounts receivable confirmation requests. The firm did not consider performing procedures to address the risks associated with electronic responses such as verifying the source and contents of the confirmation responses. (AS 2310.29)

The firm did not request the confirmation of accounts receivable or document how it overcame the presumption to perform confirmation procedures. (AS 2310.34 and .35)

The firm sent positive confirmation requests to the issuer's customers for a sample of accounts receivable. For certain items in its sample the responses were returned by email. The firm did not consider performing procedures to verify the source of these responses. (AS 2310.29)

The issuer initiated and processed sales at numerous business units. The firm designated certain of the issuer's business units as (1) subject to more extensive audit procedures or (2) subject to less extensive audit procedures. With respect to business units subject to more extensive audit procedures the following deficiencies were identified: · The firm sent positive confirmation requests to the issuer's customers for a sample of accounts receivable. For certain items in its sample the responses were returned by email. The firm did not consider performing procedures to verify the source of these responses. (AS 2310.29)

The firm sent positive confirmation requests to the issuer's customers for a sample of accounts receivable. The following deficiencies were identified: · For certain items in its sample the responses were returned by email. The firm did not consider performing any procedures to verify the source of these responses. (AS 2310.29)

The firm sent positive confirmation requests to the issuer's customers for a sample of accounts receivable. The following deficiencies were identified: · For certain confirmations that were not returned the firm did not perform alternative procedures that provided sufficient appropriate audit evidence that these balances represented valid receivables as of the confirmation date. (AS 2310.31)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the valuation of accounts receivable was to review and test management's process. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of the allowance for doubtful accounts for one customer because in response to the customer indicating in its written confirmation reply that its balance to the issuer was zero the firm limited its procedures to obtaining a written representation from the issuer's management. (AS 2501.09 .10 and .11; AS 2810.03)

With respect to Accounts Receivable the firm sent positive confirmation requests to the issuer's customers for a sample of accounts receivable. For the items in its sample for which the requested confirmations were not returned the firm did not perform alternative procedures that provided sufficient evidence that these balances represented valid receivable balances as of the confirmation date. (AS 2310.31)

The firm's substantive procedures to test accounts receivable as of an interim date consisted of performing confirmation procedures for a sample of invoices. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to extend its conclusions from the interim date to year end because its procedures were limited to performing confirmation procedures for a small sample of invoices recorded as accounts receivable at year end. (AS 2301.45)

The firm sent positive confirmation requests via email to a sample of customers as part of its substantive testing of accounts receivable and the email address for each customer was provided by the issuer. The firm received the responses for all but one of the confirmation requests sent via email. The firm did not consider performing procedures to address the risks associated with electronic responses such as verifying the source of the confirmation responses. (AS 2310.29)

To test the existence of accounts receivable the firm sent positive confirmation requests to the issuer's customers for a sample of accounts receivable as of either an interim date or year-end. To extend its conclusions from the interim date to year-end the firm tested the respective customer's year-end account balances by agreeing subsequent cash collections from those customers to the issuer's bank statements. The following deficiency was identified: · For positive confirmation requests for which the firm did not receive a response the firm did not perform alternative procedures that provided sufficient appropriate audit evidence that the recorded amounts of the receivables were accurate as of the confirmation date. (AS 2310.31)

To test the existence of accounts receivable the firm sent positive confirmation requests to the issuer's customers for a sample of accounts receivable as of either an interim date or year-end. To extend its conclusions from the interim date to year-end the firm tested the respective customer's year-end account balances by agreeing subsequent cash collections from those customers to the issuer's bank statements. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to extend its conclusions from the interim date to year-end because it did not perform any procedures to (1) evaluate whether the subsequent cash collections tested related to the customers' year-end account balances and (2) test any uncollected portion of the customers' year-end account balances. (AS 2301.45)

To test accounts receivable and certain other revenue the firm sent positive confirmation requests to the issuer's customers. The firm did not perform procedures beyond inquiry to evaluate the nature of exceptions in one returned confirmation. (AS 2310.33)

For certain accounts receivable the firm sent positive confirmation requests to the issuer's customers and received no responses. The firm did not perform alternative procedures that provided sufficient appropriate audit evidence that these balances represented valid receivable balances as of the confirmation date. (AS 2310.31)

For certain accounts receivable the firm sent positive confirmation requests to the issuer's customers and received no responses. The firm did not perform alternative procedures that provided sufficient appropriate audit evidence that these balances represented valid receivable balances as of the confirmation date. (AS 2310.31)

To test accounts receivable at one of the issuer's business units the firm performed confirmation procedures for a sample of customer accounts. The firm did not maintain control over the confirmation requests sent to customers. (AS 2310.28)

To test accounts receivable at one of the issuer's business units the firm performed confirmation procedures for a sample of customer accounts. The firm did not consider performing procedures to verify the source of responses that were returned by email. (AS 2310.29)

To test accounts receivable the firm obtained evidence of subsequent cash receipts. The firm did not request the confirmation of accounts receivable or document how it overcame the presumption to perform confirmation procedures. (AS 2310.34 and .35)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm sent positive confirmation requests to the issuer's customers for a sample of accounts receivable. The firm did not perform sufficient alternative procedures to determine that the recorded amounts of the accounts receivable existed as of the year end because the procedures were limited to tracing to internal documents indicating the date of product delivery. (AS 2310.31)

The firm sent positive confirmation requests to the issuer's customers for a sample of billed accounts receivable. For positive confirmations that were not returned the firm did not perform alternative procedures that provided sufficient appropriate audit evidence that the recorded amounts of the receivables were accurate as of the confirmation date. (AS 2310.31)

The firm did not request the confirmation of accounts receivable or document how it overcame the presumption to perform confirmation procedures. (AS 2310.34 and .35)

The firm sent positive confirmation requests to the issuer's customers for a sample of accounts receivable. For certain items in its sample the responses were returned by email. The firm did not consider performing procedures to verify the source of these responses. (AS 2310.29)

The firm sent positive confirmation requests to the issuer's customers for a sample of accounts receivable. For positive confirmations that were not returned the firm did not perform alternative procedures that provided sufficient appropriate audit evidence that the recorded amounts of the receivables were accurate as of the confirmation date. (AS 2310.31)

To test accounts receivable the firm sent confirmation requests to a sample of customers. For confirmation requests that were not returned the firm performed alternative procedures by testing subsequent cash receipts. The firm did not (1) perform any alternative procedures to test the accounts receivable balances with no subsequent cash receipts and (2) evaluate the combined evidence provided by the confirmation responses and the alternative procedures to determine whether these procedures provided sufficient appropriate evidence about the existence of accounts receivable. (AS 2310.31 and .33)

To test accounts receivable the firm sent positive confirmation requests to a sample of customer accounts. The firm did not consider performing procedures to address the risks associated with electronic responses such as verifying the source and contents of the confirmation responses. (AS 2310.29)

To test accounts receivable at one of the issuer's components the firm performed confirmation procedures for a sample of balances at an interim date. The firm obtained a rollforward of accounts receivable from the interim date to year end and selected transactions that exceeded a monetary threshold to test. The firm did not perform procedures to test the remaining population of transactions. (AS 1105.27; AS 2301.08)

The firm sent positive confirmation requests to the issuer's customers for a sample of accounts receivable. The following deficiencies were identified: · For one confirmation that was returned with exceptions the firm did not evaluate the nature of those exceptions. (AS 2310.33)

The firm sent positive confirmation requests to the issuer's customers for a sample of accounts receivable. The following deficiencies were identified: · For certain confirmations that were not returned the firm did not perform alternative procedures that provided sufficient appropriate audit evidence that these balances represented valid receivables as of the confirmation date. (AS 2310.31)

The firm's approach to testing accounts receivable included sending a positive confirmation request to the issuer's largest customer. The firm sent the confirmation request to a respondent who was an employee of the issuer who also performed contract work for the customer without considering the respondent's objectivity and freedom from bias and whether the response that was received by the firm provided meaningful and appropriate evidence. (AS 2310.26 and .27)

To test accounts receivable the firm sent positive confirmation requests to certain customers as of an interim date. The firm selected accounts receivable for testing that exceeded a monetary threshold. The firm did not perform any procedures to test the remaining population of accounts receivable. (AS 1105.27; AS 2301.08)

To test accounts receivable the firm sent positive confirmation requests to certain customers as of an interim date. The firm selected accounts receivable for testing that exceeded a monetary threshold. The following deficiency was identified with respect to the firm's confirmation procedures: · The issuer sent the confirmation requests on behalf of the firm. The firm did not maintain control of the confirmation requests through direct communication with the intended recipients of the confirmation requests. (AS 2310.28)

To test accounts receivable the firm sent positive confirmation requests to certain customers as of an interim date. The firm selected accounts receivable for testing that exceeded a monetary threshold. The following deficiency was identified with respect to the firm's confirmation procedures: · The firm received electronic responses to confirmation requests. The firm did not consider performing procedures to address the risks associated with electronic responses such as verifying the source and contents of the confirmation responses. (AS 2310.29)

To test accounts receivable the firm sent positive confirmation requests to certain customers as of an interim date. The firm selected accounts receivable for testing that exceeded a monetary threshold. The following deficiency was identified with respect to the firm's confirmation procedures: · For the confirmation requests that were not returned the firm did not perform alternative procedures that provided sufficient appropriate audit evidence that the recorded amounts of the accounts receivable were accurate as of the confirmation date. (AS 2310.31)

To test accounts receivable the firm sent positive confirmation requests to certain customers as of an interim date. The firm selected accounts receivable for testing that exceeded a monetary threshold. The following deficiency was identified with respect to the firm's confirmation procedures: · The firm did not perform procedures beyond inquiry of management to extend its conclusions regarding the existence of accounts receivable from the interim date in which the audit procedures were performed to year end. (AS 2301.45)

The firm sent positive confirmation requests to the issuer's customers for a sample of accounts receivable. For the confirmation requests that were not returned or that were returned without a response the firm did not perform alternative procedures. (AS 2310.31)

The firm selected for confirmation a customer's accounts receivable balance and received an electronic response to its confirmation request. The firm did not consider performing procedures to address the risk associated with electronic responses. (AS 2310.29)

To test certain accounts receivable the firm performed confirmation procedures for all invoices that exceeded a monetary threshold. For the items for which the requested confirmations were not returned the firm did not perform alternative procedures that provided sufficient appropriate audit evidence that these invoices represented valid receivables at year end. (AS 2310.31)

For these accounts receivable that were not subject to confirmation procedures the firm performed substantive procedures for a nonstatistical sample of invoices. For certain items in its sample the firm did not perform procedures that provided sufficient appropriate audit evidence that these invoices represented valid receivables at year end. (AS 2301.08)

The firm sent positive confirmation requests to the issuer's customers for a sample of accounts receivable. For certain confirmations that were not returned the firm did not perform alternative procedures that provided sufficient appropriate audit evidence that these balances represented valid receivables as of the confirmation date. (AS 2310.31)

Deficiency in not requesting confirmation of accounts receivable or documenting alternative procedures.

The firm sent positive confirmation requests to test accounts receivable. For certain positive confirmation requests for which it did not receive a response the firm did not perform alternative procedures that provided sufficient appropriate audit evidence to address the existence and accuracy of the accounts receivable. (AS 2310.31)