Explorer

The firm did not perform any procedures to test an estimate related to these assets including consideration of certain contrary evidence that was included in the firm's work papers. (AS 2501.07; AS 2810.03)

To test certain other assets the firm selected balances that exceeded a monetary threshold and then selected one item for each of the selected balances for testing. The firm did not perform procedures to test the remaining population. (AS 1105.27; AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test an estimate related to these assets. (AS 2501.07)

The firm did not evaluate the relevance and reliability of information used by an external specialist to determine the fair value of certain assets. (AS 2502.31)

In addition the firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of the assumptions developed by the specialist. (AS 2502.26 and .28)

The issuer performed an assessment of certain assets for possible impairment using forecasted cash flows that assumed significant revenue growth and the firm used an auditor-employed specialist to assist it with testing the issuer's impairment assessment. The auditor-employed specialist's approach consisted of (1) developing expectations of the value-in-use of these assets and (2) evaluating events occurring after the measurement date. The following deficiency was identified: · For one of these expectations the firm did not sufficiently evaluate the work of the auditor-employed specialist and identify that the auditor-employed specialist's work did not provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because the auditor-employed specialist did not perform procedures to demonstrate it had a reasonable basis for a significant assumption it used to develop the expectation. (AS 1201.C6 and .C7; AS 2501.22)

The issuer performed an assessment of certain assets for possible impairment using forecasted cash flows that assumed significant revenue growth and the firm used an auditor-employed specialist to assist it with testing the issuer's impairment assessment. The auditor-employed specialist's approach consisted of (1) developing expectations of the value-in-use of these assets and (2) evaluating events occurring after the measurement date. The following deficiency was identified: · For the other expectation the firm did not sufficiently evaluate the work of the auditor-employed specialist and identify that the auditor-employed specialist's conclusion appeared to contradict the issuer's assertion that these assets were not impaired and perform additional procedures or request the auditor-employed specialist to perform additional procedures to address the issue. (AS 1201.C7)

The issuer performed an assessment of certain assets for possible impairment using forecasted cash flows that assumed significant revenue growth and the firm used an auditor-employed specialist to assist it with testing the issuer's impairment assessment. The auditor-employed specialist's approach consisted of (1) developing expectations of the value-in-use of these assets and (2) evaluating events occurring after the measurement date. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the work of the auditor-employed specialist and identify that the auditor-employed specialist's evaluation of events occurring after the measurement date did not provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because it did not take into account certain changes in the issuer's circumstances and other relevant conditions during the evaluation period. (AS 1201.C6 and .C7; AS 2501.28 and .29)

During the year the issuer capitalized costs associated with certain of these assets. The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate whether in conformity with relevant GAAP the issuer met certain criteria necessary to capitalize these costs beyond inquiry of management and a review of the issuer's internal plans. (AS 2301.08 and .11)

The firm did not perform any procedures to demonstrate that it had a reasonable basis for assumptions it derived and used to develop an independent expectation of an estimate related to certain assets. (AS 2501.22)

The firm did not perform any procedures to test or identify and test controls over the accuracy of certain reports it used to develop this independent expectation. (AS 1105.10)

The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the relevance and/or reliability of evidence it used to test certain assets during the year. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The firm did not perform any procedures beyond inquiry to test the issuer's ownership rights of these assets. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not evaluate the nature of these assets when evaluating the appropriateness of the issuer's presentation of the assets in the issuer's financial statements. (AS 2810.30)

The issuer held certain assets at multiple locations. The following deficiencies were identified: • The firm did not identify and test any controls over the valuation of certain assets. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer held certain assets at multiple locations. The following deficiencies were identified: • The firm selected for testing a control related to certain assets that was being performed quarterly at all locations. The firm did not test whether (1) the control operated consistently at all locations; (2) all such assets at each location were subject to the control; (3) variances that exceeded the issuer's threshold were appropriately investigated and resolved; and (4) adjustments that the issuer made as a result of the control were appropriately approved and recorded. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer held certain assets at multiple locations. The following deficiencies were identified: • The firm selected for testing a control that included management's review of the reserve analysis for certain assets. 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 issuer reported several types of certain assets. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to test activity reported in the statement of cash flows related to these assets beyond tracing amounts to summarized account activity in the issuer's general ledger. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer reported several types of certain assets. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate whether the method used by the issuer to develop an estimate of certain of these assets was in conformity with certain applicable GAAP requirements. (AS 2501.10)

The issuer reported several types of certain assets. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and evaluate the issuer's omission of certain disclosures required by FASB ASC Topic 820 Fair Value Measurement. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The issuer reported several types of certain assets. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to test the rights and obligations of these assets. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer reported several types of certain assets. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate the relevance and reliability of information it obtained from external sources and used to test these assets. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The issuer reported several types of certain assets. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to test the existence of certain of these assets. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer reported several types of certain assets. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate whether the issuer's (1) accounting for certain of these assets and (2) presentation of certain other of these assets were appropriate. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer reported several types of certain assets. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the issuer's determination that there were no indicators of impairment for certain of these assets at certain dates because it did not evaluate whether the issuer had appropriately applied GAAP in identifying indicators of impairment. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not identify and evaluate the significance to the financial statements of the issuer's omission of certain required disclosures under GAAP. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The issuer used an external specialist to determine the fair values of certain assets. With respect to one asset the firm did not sufficiently evaluate the forecasted increasing sales provided to the specialist because it did not evaluate how management's strategies could overcome continuous annual declines in revenues. (AS 1210.12; AS 2810.03)

With respect to other assets the firm selected a sample for testing. For certain items selected the firm did not obtain evidence to support certain information that was used by the specialist in determining their fair values. (AS 1210.12)

With respect to other assets the firm selected a sample for testing. The firm did not consider whether the lack of supporting documentation for certain assets represented a misstatement and if so the potential effect on the evaluation of its sample. (AS 2315.25)

The firm did not evaluate the relevance and reliability of information it obtained from external sources that it used to test certain assets. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The firm selected for testing a control over the existence of certain assets. The firm did not evaluate how the issuer determined how frequently asset items would be reviewed and whether the issuer reviewed those items as frequently as intended. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of system-generated information used by the issuer in the operation of certain controls. (AS 2201.39)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test or identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of system-generated information used in its substantive testing of these assets. (AS 1105.10)

The sample sizes the firm used to test these assets 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's substantive procedures to test the existence and valuation of certain assets consisted of testing a sample of items. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test these assets because it (1) did not establish a basis to support the number of items selected in its sample as it did not appropriately take into account the relevant factors including the tolerable misstatement for the population allowable risk of incorrect acceptance and the characteristics of the population; (AS 2315.16 .19 .23 and .23A)

The firm's substantive procedures to test the existence and valuation of certain assets consisted of testing a sample of items. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test these assets because it did not test the completeness of the issuer-prepared report from which the sampled items were selected (AS 1105.10)

The firm did not evaluate the relevance and reliability of information from external sources used to test the valuation of the assets. (AS 1105.04 and.06)

In addition the issuer recognized income related to the valuation of the assets. The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether the recognition of the income was appropriate. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform any procedures to test whether the issuer's presentation and disclosure of the assets were in conformity with GAAP including not identifying and evaluating a departure from GAAP related to the issuer's omission of a required disclosure related to these assets. (AS 2301.08; AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm did not perform procedures to test the fair value of a certain asset beyond performing recalculations of an issuer-prepared schedule. (AS 2501.07)