Explorer

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 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 the issuer's review of user access to these IT systems but did not evaluate the specific procedures that the control owners performed to determine whether to grant access to users or whether the granted access continued to be appropriate. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

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 tested certain automated controls that used data maintained by one of these IT systems. The accuracy and completeness of these data depended on effective IT general controls ('ITGCs'). Due to the deficiencies in the firm's testing of the ITGCs discussed above the firm's testing of these automated controls was not sufficient. (AS 2201.46)

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 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 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)

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

The firm did not identify and evaluate various misstatements in the issuer's disclosures related to accounts receivable and other liabilities. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The issuer disclosed that it presented its accounts receivable net of certain unpaid costs. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate whether this presentation was in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 210 Balance Sheet. (AS 2301.08)

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

The issuer used an information technology (IT) system to process and record transactions related to revenue accounts receivable and inventory. In its testing of controls over these accounts the firm tested certain IT-dependent manual controls that used data and reports generated or maintained by this IT system. As a result of the deficiencies in the firm's testing of IT general controls (ITGCs) discussed below the firm's testing of these IT-dependent manual controls was not sufficient. (AS 2201.46)

The issuer used an information technology (IT) system to process and record transactions related to revenue accounts receivable and inventory. In its testing of controls over these accounts the firm tested certain IT-dependent manual controls that used data and reports generated or maintained by this IT system. The following ITGC deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control over the issuer's review of user access to this IT system but did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to determine whether to approve user access that had been requested or whether user access that had been previously approved continued to be appropriate. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer used an information technology (IT) system to process and record transactions related to revenue accounts receivable and inventory. In its testing of controls over these accounts the firm tested certain IT-dependent manual controls that used data and reports generated or maintained by this IT system. The following ITGC deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control over change management but did not perform any procedures to test or in the alternative test any controls over the completeness of the population of changes from which it made its selections for testing. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer used an information technology (IT) system to process and record transactions related to revenue accounts receivable and inventory. In its testing of controls over these accounts the firm tested certain IT-dependent manual controls that used data and reports generated or maintained by this IT system. The following deficiencies related to the firm's testing of controls were identified: · The firm used the work of the issuer's internal audit as evidence of the effectiveness of automated application controls over the accuracy and completeness of reports that the issuer used in the operation of certain other IT-dependent manual controls that the firm tested. Internal audit relied on the testing of these controls that was performed in prior years. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate whether internal audit's strategy to rely on testing that was performed in prior years was appropriate because the firm did not evaluate whether ITGCs were effective in those prior years. (AS 2201.B29; AS 2605.24)

The issuer used an information technology (IT) system to process and record transactions related to revenue accounts receivable and inventory. In its testing of controls over these accounts the firm tested certain IT-dependent manual controls that used data and reports generated or maintained by this IT system. The following deficiencies related to the firm's testing of controls were identified: · For certain automated controls the firm tested a sample of one transaction for each of these controls in the issuer's IT testing environment rather than in its production environment. The firm's testing was not sufficient because the firm did not perform procedures to determine whether the testing environment was consistent with the production environment. (AS 2201.44)

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)

The firm did not identify and test any controls over the existence and completeness of accounts receivable. (AS 2201.39)

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 firm selected for testing two controls over the review of the allowance for doubtful accounts. With respect to the control over the accurate aging of outstanding invoices the firm did not directly test this control because its procedures were substantive in nature. (AS 2201.42 .44 and .B9)

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)

The firm sent positive confirmation requests to the issuer's customers for a sample of accounts receivable. For confirmations returned with exceptions and for those for which differences were identified through alternative procedures the firm did not sufficiently evaluate the nature of those exceptions as it limited its procedures to inquiry. (AS 2310.33)

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: • The firm did not evaluate the review procedures that the control owners performed including the procedures to identify items for follow-up and the procedures to determine whether those items were appropriately resolved. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

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 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 identify and test any controls over the issuer's accounts receivable. (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 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 evaluate the review procedures that the control owner performed including the procedures to identify items for follow-up and the procedures to determine whether those items were appropriately resolved. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

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)

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

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 selected a sample of invoices to test accounts receivable. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test certain invoices because the firm limited its procedures to reviewing the invoice and inquiry of management. (AS 2301.08)

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 did not evaluate whether the issuer measured its allowance for doubtful accounts receivable ('allowance') using a probability-weighted amount that was determined by evaluating a range of possible outcomes as required by the issuer's applicable financial reporting framework. (AS 2810.30)

With respect to Accounts Receivable the firm's approach for substantively testing the allowance was to review and test the issuer's process. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumptions that the issuer used to develop the allowance. (AS 2501.16)

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 evaluate whether the firm had a reasonable basis for the significant assumptions related to the expected credit loss rate the issuer used to estimate its allowance for doubtful accounts. (AS 2501.16)

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)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the allowance for doubtful accounts was to develop an independent expectation. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to test or test controls over the accuracy of certain data it used to develop its independent expectation. (AS 1105.10)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the allowance for doubtful accounts was to develop an independent expectation. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to demonstrate it had a reasonable basis for certain assumptions it developed and used in determining its independent expectation. (AS 2501.22)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the allowance for doubtful accounts was to develop an independent expectation. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not compare its independent expectation to the issuer's recorded allowance for doubtful accounts and evaluate the difference. (AS 2501.26; AS 2810.13)

The issuer's accounts receivable from related and unrelated parties consisted of nonrefundable fees from agreements discussed above which had payment terms beyond one year. The firm did not evaluate the assumptions the issuer used in estimating the allowance for doubtful accounts. (AS 2501.07)

The issuer's accounts receivable from related and unrelated parties consisted of nonrefundable fees from agreements discussed above which had payment terms beyond one year. The firm did not evaluate whether the issuer's accounts receivable that were not expected to be collected within 12 months should have been classified as non-current assets in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 310 Receivables. (AS 2810.30)

The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether the issuer's disclosure of the credit quality of certain accounts receivable was in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 326 Financial Instruments — Credit Losses. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate whether the issuer's classification of certain accounts receivable as current assets was in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 210 Balance Sheet. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm sent positive confirmation requests to test accounts receivable. The firm did not perform any alternative procedures for the positive confirmation requests for which it did not receive a response. (AS 2310.31)

The firm did not perform procedures to test the allowance for doubtful accounts beyond reading issuer prepared accounts receivable aging schedules. (AS 2501.07)

The issuer used multiple information-technology (IT) systems to initiate process and record transactions related to revenue accounts receivable and unbilled receivables. In its testing of controls over these accounts the firm tested various IT-dependent manual controls that used data and reports generated or maintained by these IT systems. As a result of the deficiencies in the firm's testing of IT general controls (ITGCs) the firm's testing of these IT-dependent manual controls was not sufficient. (AS 2201.46)

The issuer used multiple information-technology (IT) systems to initiate process and record transactions related to revenue accounts receivable and unbilled receivables. In its testing of controls over these accounts the firm tested various IT-dependent manual controls that used data and reports generated or maintained by these IT systems. As a result of the following deficiency in the firm's testing of IT general controls (ITGCs) the firm's testing of these IT-dependent manual controls was not sufficient. • The firm selected for testing certain controls over change management and user access but did not test or test any controls over the completeness of the population from which it selected its samples for testing. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer used multiple information-technology (IT) systems to initiate process and record transactions related to revenue accounts receivable and unbilled receivables. In its testing of controls over these accounts the firm tested various IT-dependent manual controls that used data and reports generated or maintained by these IT systems. As a result of the following deficiency in the firm's testing of IT general controls (ITGCs) the firm's testing of these IT-dependent manual controls was not sufficient. • The firm did not identify and test controls that addressed the risk that users with the ability to develop changes also have the ability to implement those changes. (AS 2201.39)