Explorer

The sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test revenue and accounts receivable were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiency in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The sample sizes the firm used in its substantive procedures to test certain revenue and accounts receivable were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test revenue and accounts receivable were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test revenue were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The issuer recognized revenue from multiple revenue streams. The following deficiency was identified: · The sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test revenue and related accounts receivable were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiency in the firm's control testing discussed in the first bullet above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The firm's procedures to test the existence and valuation of accounts receivable included selecting a sample of customer invoices for testing using a sampling approach that was based on obtaining a certain level of audit evidence from its other substantive procedures. The sample size the firm used was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence over accounts receivable because the firm's other substantive procedures did not provide the level of substantive evidence needed to support its sampling approach. (AS 2315.16 .19 .23 and .23A)

The firm's procedures to test the existence and valuation of accounts receivable at these five locations included selecting a sample of customer invoices for testing using a sampling approach that was based on obtaining a certain level of audit evidence from its other substantive procedures and placing reliance on controls. The sample size the firm used was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence over accounts receivable because the firm's other substantive procedures did not provide the level of substantive evidence needed to support its sampling approach (AS 2315.16 .19 .23 and .23A).

The firm's procedures to test the existence and valuation of accounts receivable at these five locations included selecting a sample of customer invoices for testing using a sampling approach that was based on obtaining a certain level of audit evidence from its other substantive procedures and placing reliance on controls. The sample size the firm used was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence over accounts receivable because the procedures performed to test accounts receivable were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiencies in the firm's testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The sample sizes the firm used in its substantive procedures to test the existence of certain accounts receivable were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to deficiencies in the firm's IT control testing. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The sample size the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test accounts receivable was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

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 sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test this revenue were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The issuer used an IT system to initiate process and record transactions related to certain revenue accounts receivable and inventory. The firm selected for testing various automated controls related to this revenue accounts receivable and inventory. The following deficiencies were identified: · The sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test this revenue accounts receivable and inventory were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

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 sample size the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test accounts receivable was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

For two of these business units the firm selected for testing a control that included the issuer's reviews of adjustments to the contract prices that were used to recognize revenue. The following deficiency was identified: · For the first business unit when evaluating the design of the control the firm did not evaluate (1) the criteria the control owners used to identify items for follow-up and (2) the number of items the control owner reviewed to assess whether it was sufficient to address the risk of material misstatement. (AS 2201.42)

The sample size the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test accounts receivable was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The firm's approach for substantively testing revenue consisted primarily of performing a software-assisted analysis to test the relationships among revenue accounts receivable and cash receipts. The firm's approach to addressing the reliability of the audit evidence obtained from this type of analysis was dependent upon the firm's tests of details of certain data underlying the analysis. The sample sizes the firm used in certain of these tests of details were smaller than the ones the firm determined necessary for these procedures. (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 controls that consisted of the issuer's reviews of new user access and changes made to its production environment for these IT systems. The number of items the firm selected for testing did not provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence given the frequency with which the control operated. (AS 2201.46)

The sample size the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test accounts receivable was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

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 sample size the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test accounts receivable was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The sample size the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test accounts receivable was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

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 sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The sample sizes that the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test this revenue and accounts receivable were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to (1) the deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above and/or (2) the firm not taking into account that the controls it relied upon were not designed and operating effectively during the entire period of reliance. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test revenue accounts receivable and inventory for both branches were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test revenue accounts receivable and inventory for both subsidiaries were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test revenue and accounts receivable were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test this revenue were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The sample sizes the firm used in its substantive procedures to test revenue and accounts receivable at certain of the issuer's business units were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The sample sizes the firm used in its substantive procedures to test revenue and accounts receivable at this segment were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiency in the firm's control testing. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

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 sample sizes the firm used in its substantive procedures were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because the firm did not take into account the relevant factors in determining its sample size including tolerable misstatement for the populations the allowable risk of incorrect acceptance and the characteristics of the populations. (AS 2315.16 .19 .23 and .23A)

The sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test revenue and accounts receivable were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test revenue deferred revenue and accounts receivable were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The sample size the firm used in its substantive procedures to test adjustments to one type of revenue and related accounts receivable was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiency in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test revenue and accounts receivable at these business units were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiency in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test product revenue accounts receivable and certain expenses and related accruals were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

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 sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test this revenue and accounts receivable were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiency in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The issuer recognized various types of revenue from one of its segments. The following deficiencies were identified: · The sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test revenue and accounts receivable for this segment were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test revenue and accounts receivable were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The sample size the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test accounts receivable was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because the procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiencies in the firm's testing of automated controls discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and 23A)

The sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test revenue and these accounts receivable were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test revenue accounts receivable and inventory were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

With respect to the firm's substantive procedures the following deficiency was identified: · The sample sizes that the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test revenue and accounts receivable were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on (1) a level of control reliance that was not supported due to (a) the deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above and (b) the firm not obtaining evidence that a control over change management which it selected for testing was operating effectively during the entire period of reliance and (2) an assessment of risk for other substantive tests related to the same assertion that was not supported as the engagement team did not perform any other substantive procedures to test the same assertions. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)