Explorer

The firm's approach for substantively testing the allowance for doubtful accounts was to review and test management's process. The firm did not test the accuracy and completeness of data the issuer used to determine the allowance. (AS 1105.10; AS 2501.11)

As a result of the firm's control testing deficiencies the firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test or sufficiently test controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain system-generated data and reports it used in its substantive testing for this revenue and the related accounts receivable. (AS 1105.10)

For one type of revenue the firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the issuer's review of (1) invoices and revenue journal entries and (2) the related accounts receivable reconciliation. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain reports that were used in the operation of these controls. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer offered preferred pricing based on a customer's status. The following deficiencies were identified with respect to revenue from certain of these customers: · The firm did not perform procedures to test or test controls over the accuracy and/or completeness of certain system-generated data or reports the firm used in its substantive testing of this revenue. (AS 1105.10)

For two business units the firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain information used to record revenue. (AS 2201.39)

For one of these business units the firm selected for testing a control over the issuer's review of certain customer's accounts receivable balances. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of a report used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's monthly review of the financial results. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of data used in the operation of the control. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer recognized revenue from multiple revenue streams. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm selected for testing controls over certain revenue and related accounts receivable that consisted of (1) the issuer's performance of consistency checks between its systems that track the delivery of services and other systems where sales orders are manually entered as received and (2) management's review of the exception reports produced from these checks that reflect anomalies in the data between the various systems. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the exception reports used in the operation of these controls. (AS 2201.39)

The firm selected for testing controls over accounts receivable at five of the issuer's locations including certain automated and manual controls related to the matching of cash receipts to the corresponding invoices and application of the receipts to the correct accounts receivable balances. For four of these locations the issuer changed from a manual cash application control to an automated cash application control during the first quarter of the year. The automated control included a manual element that used system-generated reports to identify investigate and apply cash receipts that were not automatically processed. The following deficiency was identified: · For four locations the firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the automated control because the firm did not (1) evaluate whether the control was configurable or programmable within the system and (2) perform procedures to test the configuration or program of the control as applicable. Further the firm did not test each relevant scenario of the automated control to ensure the system processed transactions as designed. (AS 2201.42 and 44)

The firm selected for testing controls over accounts receivable at five of the issuer's locations including certain automated and manual controls related to the matching of cash receipts to the corresponding invoices and application of the receipts to the correct accounts receivable balances. For four of these locations the issuer changed from a manual cash application control to an automated cash application control during the first quarter of the year. The automated control included a manual element that used system-generated reports to identify investigate and apply cash receipts that were not automatically processed. The following deficiency was identified: · For four locations the firm did not perform any procedures to test the manual element of the control when cash receipts were not automatically applied. (AS 2201.39)

The firm selected for testing controls over accounts receivable at five of the issuer's locations including certain automated and manual controls related to the matching of cash receipts to the corresponding invoices and application of the receipts to the correct accounts receivable balances. For four of these locations the issuer changed from a manual cash application control to an automated cash application control during the first quarter of the year. The automated control included a manual element that used system-generated reports to identify investigate and apply cash receipts that were not automatically processed. The following deficiency was identified: · For one location the firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed whether cash receipts were matched to corresponding invoices and applied to the correct accounts receivable balances. (AS 2201.39)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test or in the alternative identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of data and reports obtained from the issuer's IT system that it used to test certain revenue. (AS 1105.10)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed certain of these areas but did not identify certain of the deficiencies below. With respect to Accounts Receivable which was affected by the audit deficiencies related to user access and change management the following additional deficiency was identified: · The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review and analysis of accounts receivable as reflected in a customized system-generated accounts receivable aging report. The firm did not perform procedures to test the accuracy and completeness of the reports and calculations produced by the system to determine whether the automated aspect of the control operated as it was designed. (AS 2201.44)

The following deficiency was identified: · The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's verification of the shipment and delivery dates recorded in the accounting system to determine whether the transfer of title and recognition of revenue was based on accurate information. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the completeness of a customized system-generated report used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

The following deficiency was identified: · The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the issuer's (1) use of revenue recognition triggers to consistently recognize revenue for each billing type (2) matching of sales invoices to documents supporting proof of delivery and transfer of title and (3) verification of the shipment and delivery dates recorded in the accounting system to determine whether the transfer of title and recognition of revenue was based on accurate information. The firm did not perform procedures to test or test any controls over the completeness of the population of a customized system-generated report from which it made its selections for testing. (AS 1105.10)

As a result of the firm's control testing deficiencies discussed above the firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures for two types of revenue and the related accounts receivable and for deferred revenue related to one of these types of revenue as follows: · The firm's substantive procedures to test these accounts included analytical procedures. The firm used data from the issuer's systems to develop its expectations but did not test or sufficiently test controls over the accuracy and completeness of these data. Further the firm established its thresholds for investigating differences based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiencies in the firm's testing of controls. As a result the analytical procedures did not provide the desired level of assurance that misstatements that could have been material would be identified. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2305.16 and 20)

As a result of the firm's control testing deficiencies discussed above the firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures for two types of revenue and the related accounts receivable and for deferred revenue related to one of these types of revenue as follows: · The firm performed substantive procedures to test certain arrangements with multiple performance obligations. The firm's testing of the reasonableness of the relative stand-alone selling prices the issuer used to allocate this revenue to the performance obligations was not sufficient because the firm did not test or sufficiently test controls over the accuracy and completeness of the data it used in its testing. (AS 1105.10)

A component of the issuer (“component”) entered into contracts with customers in which revenue was recognized over time based on the extent of progress towards completion of the performance obligation. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the component's review of invoices. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain data used in the operation of the control. (AS 2201.39)

A component of the issuer (“component”) entered into contracts with customers in which revenue was recognized over time based on the extent of progress towards completion of the performance obligation. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the component's review of gross receivables. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain data used in the operation of the control. (AS 2201.39)

A component of the issuer (“component”) entered into contracts with customers in which revenue was recognized over time based on the extent of progress towards completion of the performance obligation. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm used certain data to substantively test accounts receivable but did not test or (as discussed above) test controls over the accuracy and completeness of this data. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer used multiple IT systems to initiate process and record transactions related to certain revenue and the related accounts receivable. · The firm selected for testing a control over the periodic review of user access for each of these IT systems. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain information included in manually prepared spreadsheets that the control owners used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

The firm selected for testing certain other controls that the issuer used to process and record revenue transactions. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain data used in the operation of these controls. (AS 2201.39)

As a result of the firm's control testing deficiencies the firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures over revenue and the related accounts receivable as follows: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test or sufficiently test controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain system-generated data or reports the firm used (1) to make its selections to test certain controls or (2) in its substantive testing. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer recorded revenue net of estimated allowances for contractual adjustments. The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the monthly review of (1) the reasonableness of the estimated allowances for contractual adjustments and (2) the comparison of net revenue to cash collections. The firm did not identify and test any controls over (1) the accuracy and completeness of a report used in the operation of one of these controls and (2) the accuracy and/or completeness of certain data that were used in the operation of both controls. (AS 2201.39)

The firm did not test the accuracy of the billing rates that the issuer used to determine the allowances for contractual adjustments. Further the firm did not sufficiently test the accuracy and completeness of the cash collection data the issuer used to determine the allowances because the firm limited its procedures to comparing the data to a system-generated report that it had not tested. (AS 2501.11)

For revenue at one of the issuer's segments the firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain customer order data that were entered or transferred into the issuer's systems and used to recognize revenue. (AS 2201.39)

With respect to Accounts Receivable the issuer did not record an allowance for doubtful accounts based on an assumption. The firm's approach for evaluating the reasonableness of this assumption was to develop an independent expectation of the issuer's assumption. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not perform any procedures to test or in the alternative identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of issuer data that the firm used to develop its independent expectation. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer reported accounts receivables including unbilled receivables for multiple business entities. The firm did not test or test controls over the accuracy and completeness of system-generated reports used in its substantive testing. (AS 1105.10)

The firm selected for testing a control over manually recorded period-end adjustments to reverse certain revenue for shipped products that had not been delivered to the issuer's customers by the end of the period. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the shipping terms entered into the revenue system that were used to determine whether adjustments were necessary. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer entered into revenue arrangements with multiple elements and allocated consideration to the deliverables using vendor-specific objective evidence ('VSOE') of fair value or its BESP. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm's approach to substantively test the VSOE and BESP analyses was to review and test management's process. The firm did not test the accuracy and completeness of the stand-alone sales transactions the issuer used in these analyses or in the alternative test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of these transactions. (AS 2501.11)

The firm selected for testing controls over adjustments to one type of revenue and related accounts receivable and the gain on the sale of certain real estate assets. The issuer used system-generated reports in the performance of these controls. To test controls over the accuracy and completeness of these reports the firm either relied on testing performed in a prior year or tested one instance of the reports as of an interim date. The firm did not identify and evaluate the nature of the changes that were made to the configuration of these reports after the testing dates to update its conclusion to the date of management's assessment. (AS 2201.55 and .56)

The issuer recognized various types of revenue from one of its segments. The following deficiencies were identified: · For the type of revenue subject to the first deficiency discussed above the firm's substantive procedures to test revenue and related accounts receivable consisted of performing tests of details. The firm used certain system-generated data to provide evidence related to revenue recognition in its substantive testing. The firm did not perform substantive procedures to test or in the alternative identify and test any controls over the accuracy of the system-generated data that the firm used in its substantive testing. (AS 1105.10)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The issuer recorded an allowance for expected credit losses related to accounts receivable which was based in part on significant assumptions regarding default rates. The issuer assigned credit rating categories to each receivable based on whether or not the customer had made payments and assigned a default rate to each customer's receivable based on that assigned category which was based on information from an external source. The firm's approach to test the allowance for expected credit losses was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures beyond comparison to an issuer-prepared schedule to test the issuer's presentation of certain items related to accounts receivable and the allowance for expected credit losses in the statement of cash flows. (AS 2301.08)

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. To test the related allowance for doubtful accounts the firm developed an independent expectation of the estimate. The firm did not perform procedures to test or in the alternative test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain data it used to develop its independent expectation. (AS 1105.10)

The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the issuer's reviews of the allowance for doubtful accounts. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain data used in the performance of these controls. (AS 2201.39)

The firm did not perform substantive procedures to test or in the alternative identify and test controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain data and reports used in its substantive procedures to test revenue deferred revenue and accounts receivable. (AS 1105.10)

The firm selected for testing two controls over the review of the allowance for doubtful accounts. The firm did not identify and test controls over the accuracy and completeness of the accounts receivable aging used in the operation of these two controls beyond identifying and testing a control over the accurate aging of outstanding invoices. (AS 2201.39)

The principal auditor instructed the firm to test certain controls over revenue and accounts receivable that consisted of management's review of (1) changes to customer data (2) the accounts receivable and allowance for doubtful accounts (3) credit memos (4) sales reversal entries (5) the rebate reserves and underlying assumptions and (6) the allocation of the total transaction price to the separate performance obligations based on their relative standalone selling prices. The following deficiency was identified: • For certain of these controls the firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain data or reports used in the operation of the controls. (AS 2201.39)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of management's review of the accounts receivable aging report to determine whether the allowance for doubtful accounts was appropriate. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the aging report used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

The firm did not perform any procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy of the accounts receivable aging reports and the accuracy and completeness of data related to payments collected by the issuer subsequent to year end which were used in its audit procedures. (AS 1105.10)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed certain of these areas and identified the deficiencies below in the related areas reviewed. The firm did not perform any procedures to test or identify and test controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain reports it used to test the allowance for doubtful accounts. (AS 1105.10)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the allowance for doubtful accounts was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not perform procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain issuer-produced data the issuer used to develop the significant assumptions. (AS 1105.10)

To test revenue and accounts receivable the firm performed tests of details over a sample of revenue transactions and confirmed a sample of customer receivables using certain issuer-prepared reports. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of certain data included in one of the issuer-prepared reports ('invoice detailed report') used in its substantive testing of revenue and accounts receivable because the firm did not test the validity of the information used to evaluate the relevance and reliability of the data. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

To test revenue and accounts receivable the firm performed tests of details over a sample of revenue transactions and confirmed a sample of customer receivables using certain issuer-prepared reports. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of (1) the invoice detailed report used in its substantive testing of revenue and accounts receivable and (2) another issuer-prepared report used in its substantive testing of revenue. (AS 1105.10)