Explorer

Payments collected by the issuer were applied to the oldest outstanding accounts receivable balance first. The firm used a system-generated accounts receivable aging report to substantively test the allowance for doubtful accounts but did not perform procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy of the report beyond agreeing a sample of balances from the accounts receivable aging report to the respective billings. (AS 1105.10)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the existence of accounts receivable. (AS 2301.08)

The firm selected an account receivable for testing but did not perform substantive procedures to test it beyond comparing it to invoices. (AS 2301.08)

The firm selected an account receivable for testing but did not perform any substantive procedures to test whether the account receivable was fully collectible. (AS 2501.07)

The firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures to test the existence of accounts receivable because for certain receivables selected for testing the firm limited its procedures to comparing the customer's name date and amount of the receivable to the corresponding tax invoice which was based on sales data provided by the component. (AS 2301.08)

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 less extensive audit procedures the following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to address the risks of material misstatement related to existence of accounts receivable. (AS 2301.08)

The following deficiencies were identified for another type of revenue: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test (1) whether the performance obligation was satisfied before revenue was recognized and (2) the completeness of this revenue for the first three quarters of the year. (AS 2301.08)

The firm subjected certain other of the issuer's business units to less extensive audit procedures. With respect to revenue from these business units the following deficiencies were identified: · To firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test revenue for these business units. (AS 2301.08)

With respect to Accounts Receivable the firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the collectability of accounts receivable. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer's policy is to apply payments to the oldest outstanding accounts receivable balance first. The firm used system-generated accounts receivable aging reports to substantively test the allowance for credit losses. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the accuracy of these reports because it did not perform procedures to evaluate whether any accounts receivable balances were inappropriately removed from the aging reports due to the issuer's policy while other accounts receivable balances inappropriately remained. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer's accounts receivable included certain credit balances that were reclassified as liabilities of the issuer. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to obtain an understanding of the nature of certain of these credit balances and evaluate whether they represented valid obligations of the issuer. (AS 2301.08)

The firm's reliance on the entity-level controls discussed above to reduce its substantive procedures was unsupported. As a result its analytical procedures which consisted of comparisons of certain current-year account balances to corresponding prior-period balances to test revenue accounts receivable and inventory for these locations did not provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer used various IT systems to initiate process and record transactions related to certain revenue and accounts receivable. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control over change management for these IT systems but did not perform sufficient procedures to test the completeness of the population of changes from which it made its selections for testing because it limited its procedures to testing the completeness of only one type of change. (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 did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate the appropriateness of certain revenue recognized for new and modified customer contracts. (AS 2301.08)

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's approach for substantively testing certain revenue consisted primarily of performing a software-assisted analysis to test the relationships among revenue accounts receivable and cash receipts. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the underlying revenue transactions for revenue with no relationship to accounts receivable. (AS 2301.08)

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 did not perform any substantive procedures to test certain revenue. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

For two of these business units the firm selected for testing controls over contract pricing but did not perform any substantive procedures to test or test any controls over the completeness of the population of items from which it selected its samples for testing. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer used multiple information-technology (IT) systems to initiate process and/or record transactions related to revenue and the related accounts receivable investment securities and cash. With respect to change management: · For another IT system the firm selected for testing controls over change management but did not perform procedures to test or test any controls over the completeness of the population of items from which it selected its samples 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 over revenue deferred revenue and accounts receivable as follows: · The firm did not perform procedures to test or sufficiently test controls over the completeness of certain reports the firm used in its substantive testing. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer used an information-technology (IT) system to initiate process and record certain transactions related to revenue and accounts receivable. With respect to user access the following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a user access control over this IT system that consisted of management's review and approval of user access requests. The firm did not perform procedures to test or test controls over the completeness of the population of user access requests from which it made its selections for testing. (AS 1105.10)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test certain accounts receivable outstanding longer than a year as it limited its procedures to tracing the balances to its prior year audit work papers. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test certain accounts receivable outstanding less than one year as it limited its procedures to tracing transactions to statements produced by the party owing the funds which were provided by the issuer. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the reasonableness of the reserve for accounts receivable. (AS 2501.07)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to corroborate management's assertion that the credit balances discussed above represented amounts due to third parties rather than errors in the amounts recorded as allowances for contractual adjustments. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform substantive procedures to evaluate the terms and conditions included in certain customer contracts when testing whether the issuer appropriately recognized revenue related to these contracts. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not evaluate certain evidence that indicated that the accounts receivable from one of the issuer's customers may not be fully collectible. (AS 2301.08 and. 11; AS 2810.03)

With respect to revenue and accounts receivable at certain other business units that the firm subjected to less extensive audit procedures the following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test revenue and accounts receivable for these business units. (AS 2301.08)

To test accounts receivable the firm obtained evidence of subsequent cash receipts. The firm did not evaluate the reliability of the evidence of subsequent cash receipts. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The issuer reported accounts receivables including unbilled receivables for multiple business entities. The firm selected for testing a sample of accounts receivable for certain business entities and unbilled receivables for certain other business entities. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures over accounts receivable selected for testing that were not collected or were only partially collected in subsequent periods. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer reported accounts receivables including unbilled receivables for multiple business entities. The firm selected for testing a sample of accounts receivable for certain business entities and unbilled receivables for certain other business entities. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to test whether services had been rendered prior to the issuer's recording of certain unbilled receivables. (AS 2301.08)

The firm selected certain other billed account receivables and agreed the customer balances to issuer-generated invoices. The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the relevance and/or reliability of the invoices it used to test such receivables. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The firm did not sufficiently test unbilled receivables because the firm did not perform procedures to test such receivables beyond comparing certain unbilled balances as of an interim date to the respective balances at year end. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform procedures to substantively test certain accounts receivable beyond examining the related customer invoice prepared by the issuer. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not sufficiently test certain receivables because the firm did not perform procedures to test the collectability of such receivables beyond inquiries of management and reviewing an aging schedule. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer used an IT system to record revenue and accounts receivable transactions related to certain services that the issuer provided to its customers. This system recorded revenue transactions using service codes that the system selected based on various inputs into the system. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm used these service codes in its substantive testing of this revenue and accounts receivable but did not perform any substantive procedures to test or in the alternative identify and test any controls over the appropriateness of the service codes. (AS1105.10)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the accounts receivable allowance and bad debt expense. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the allowance for doubtful accounts. (AS 2501.07)

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 to evaluate the relevance of the credit rating categories from the external source that the issuer used in determining the default rates. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

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 to test or test any controls over the accuracy of certain information used by the issuer in calculating a component of its allowance for expected credit losses. (AS 1105.10)

To test accounts receivable at a second component and certain accounts receivable at a third component the firm selected balances for testing that exceeded a monetary threshold. The firm did not perform procedures to test the remaining population of accounts receivable. (AS 1105.27; AS 2301.08)

To test certain other accounts receivable at the third component the firm selected balances for testing at an interim date that exceeded a monetary threshold. The firm did not perform procedures to test the remaining population of accounts receivable. Further the firm did not perform procedures to extend its conclusion from the interim date to year end. (AS 1105.27; AS 2301.08 and .45)

The firm did not perform procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy of certain data that it used to test the allowance for doubtful accounts at the second and third components. (AS 1105.10)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to obtain the necessary understanding of the flow of transactions within the revenue and accounts receivable transaction cycles including the effect of the issuer's information technology (“IT”) systems to identify the likely sources of potential misstatements. (AS 2201.34 and .36)

The firm also traced one invoice due from another customer to subsequent cash receipts. The firm did not perform any procedures to test the remaining accounts receivable balance. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not perform procedures to examine material adjustments made to accounts receivable during the course of preparing the financial statements. (AS 2301.41)

The issuer used two IT systems to process and record transactions related to revenue and certain accounts receivable. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing various controls over program change management for these IT systems but did not perform any procedures to test the completeness of the population of changes obtained from the issuer from which it made its selections for testing. (AS 1105.10)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to address the assessed risks of material misstatement related to revenue accounts receivable and inventory for several of the issuer's business units. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test certain accounts receivable. (AS 2301.08)

The principal auditor also instructed the firm to perform certain procedures to substantively test revenue including the performance of a software-assisted analysis to test the relationships among revenue accounts receivable and cash receipts. The reliability of the audit evidence obtained from this analysis was dependent upon the firm's testing of cash receipts data underlying the analysis. To test this data the firm agreed a sample of cash receipts to bank statements and/or customer invoices. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate whether the cash receipts data was sufficiently precise and appropriate for use in the analysis because it did not evaluate whether: • the cash receipts of two of the selections were related to sales invoices outstanding in accounts receivables; • the entire cash receipt of one of the selections was related to sales invoices outstanding in accounts receivables using independent information from the customers as the firm only agreed a portion of the cash receipt to a customer invoice; and • the recorded cash reversal against the customer balance of one of the selections related to revenue and a related outstanding accounts receivable or evaluate whether this was a true exception in the context of the testing attributes. (AS 1105.10)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the existence of and the issuer's rights and obligations regarding accounts receivable because it limited its procedures to (1) inquiring of the issuer and (2) inspecting documents prepared by the issuer regarding the amounts recorded for certain accounts receivable. (AS 2301.08)