Explorer

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of a quarterly review of the provision for income taxes. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the information used by the control owner in the performance of this control. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer's deferred tax liabilities were primarily related to timing differences between book and tax depreciation expense for property and equipment. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test tax depreciation. (AS 2301.08)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of a review of uncertain tax positions. The firm did not evaluate the review procedures that the control owner performed including the criteria the control owner used to identify items for follow up and whether those items were appropriately resolved. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the review of the provision for income taxes including the issuer's review of (1) the effective tax rate reconciliation and (2) considerations regarding the need to record a deferred tax asset valuation allowance. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to assess the effective tax rate and whether a valuation allowance was needed. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer determined that no deferred tax asset valuation allowance was necessary for the current year. The firm did not evaluate the appropriateness of the assumptions the issuer used in its determination. (AS 2501.11)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of an analysis of the valuation of deferred tax assets. The issuer adjusted its valuation of certain deferred tax assets based on a study prepared by the issuer's external specialist. The firm did not perform any procedures to test the aspect of this control or any other control that addressed the accuracy and completeness of the data and reasonableness of the assumptions used in this study. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm did not perform any procedures to test the reasonableness of the fair value of certain assets or the tax basis of certain assets and liabilities used in the issuer's external specialist's study that the issuer used to adjust the valuation of certain deferred tax assets. (AS 2501.11)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's quarterly review of the provision for income taxes. 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 selected for testing a control over the review of the issuer's income tax provision. In its testing of the operating effectiveness of this control the firm did not evaluate whether an item identified by the control owner for follow up was appropriately resolved. (AS 2201.44)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test or in the alternative test any controls over the accuracy and/or completeness of certain data the firm used in its substantive testing of income taxes. (AS 1105.10)

The firm did not identify and evaluate the significance to the financial statements of a misstatement in a required disclosure under FASB ASC Topic 740 Income Taxes. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the estimated future benefit of certain deferred tax assets was to review and test management's process. The issuer used forecasts to determine this estimate. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of this estimate because the firm's procedures to test certain assumptions underlying these forecasts were limited to inquiring of management and performing a sensitivity analysis that indicated that if certain alternative assumptions were used the future benefit would change by a significant amount. Further the firm did not perform any procedures to test the accuracy and completeness of certain data the issuer used in these forecasts. (AS 1105.10; AS 2501.09 .10 and .11)

The firm selected for testing certain controls that consisted of the issuer's review of the income tax provision transfer-pricing reserves uncertain tax positions and tax disclosures. 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 identify and test any controls related to the issuer's evaluation of the potential effects of changes in tax rates tax laws and accounting standards. (AS 2201.39)

The firm did not perform any procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain information produced by the issuer that the firm used in its substantive testing of the income tax provision. (AS 1105.10)

The firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed the risk related to the issuer's compliance with transfer pricing regulations for intercompany transactions. (AS 2201.39)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate the issuer's assessment of its compliance with transfer-pricing regulations for intercompany transactions. (AS 2301.08)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit reviewed these areas and also identified the deficiencies below. The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of the valuation of deferred tax assets. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the review of forecasted financial information 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 and completeness of certain information produced by the issuer that the firm used in its substantive testing of the income tax provision and a deferred tax asset. (AS 1105.10)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed the revenue area but did not identify the deficiency below. The firm's approach for substantively testing the valuation allowance that the issuer recorded against its deferred tax assets was to test the issuer's process. The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumptions the issuer used to determine the valuation allowance beyond inquiring of management. (AS 2501.16)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed the revenue area but did not identify the deficiency below. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test certain of the issuer's income tax disclosures. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the valuation allowance that the issuer recorded against its deferred tax assets beyond inquiring of management. (AS 2501.07)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test certain deferred tax assets beyond comparing certain information from the supporting schedules that the issuer used to calculate these deferred tax assets to the general ledger. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform procedures to test certain permanent and temporary differences used in calculating the income tax provision beyond vouching these amounts to issuer-prepared schedules. (AS 2301.08 and.11)

The firm did not perform procedures beyond obtaining and reading the issuer's analysis to evaluate the issuer's conclusion that a deferred tax asset valuation allowance was not required including consideration of contradictory evidence. (AS 2501.07; AS 2810.03) Unrelated to our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for the gross deferred tax asset and the related valuation allowance and concluded that material misstatements existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently corrected these misstatements in a restatement of its financial statements and the firm revised and reissued its report on the financial statements.

The firm did not identify and evaluate a misstatement in the amount of the gross deferred tax asset disclosed in the financial statements. (AS 2810.30 and .31) Unrelated to our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for the gross deferred tax asset and the related valuation allowance and concluded that material misstatements existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently corrected these misstatements in a restatement of its financial statements and the firm revised and reissued its report on the financial statements.

The firm did not identify and test any controls over the determination and valuation of certain deferred tax assets. (AS 2201.39) Unrelated to our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for income taxes and concluded that a material misstatement existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently corrected this misstatement in a restatement of its financial statements and the firm revised and reissued its report on the financial statements. The issuer also reevaluated its controls over income taxes and concluded that a material weakness existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently reflected this material weakness in a revision to its report on ICFR and the firm revised its opinion on the effectiveness of the issuer's ICFR to express an adverse opinion and reissued its report.

The firm did not identify and evaluate a departure from GAAP related to the issuer's reporting of certain deferred tax assets that should have been written off and recognized as income tax expense in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 740 Income Taxes. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of the provision for income taxes including the valuation of deferred tax assets. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to evaluate the reasonableness of the valuation of deferred tax assets. (AS 2201.42 and .44) Unrelated to our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for the income tax provision and concluded that a material misstatement existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently restated its financial statements to correct this and other material misstatements and the firm revised and reissued its report on the financial statements. The issuer also reevaluated its controls over the income tax provision and concluded that a material weakness existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently revised its report on ICFR to reflect this material weakness and the other material weaknesses discussed herein and the firm modified its opinion on the effectiveness of the issuer's ICFR to express an adverse opinion and reissued its report.

The issuer recorded a partial valuation allowance against recorded deferred tax assets based on an estimate of forecasted taxable income that included the expected sale of a certain asset. The firm did not evaluate whether the issuer considered all available evidence both positive and negative and the reasonableness of the issuer's weighting of that evidence as it related to the valuation of the asset held for sale. (AS 2501.11) Unrelated to our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for the income tax provision and concluded that a material misstatement existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently restated its financial statements to correct this and other material misstatements and the firm revised and reissued its report on the financial statements. The issuer also reevaluated its controls over the income tax provision and concluded that a material weakness existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently revised its report on ICFR to reflect this material weakness and the other material weaknesses discussed herein and the firm modified its opinion on the effectiveness of the issuer's ICFR to express an adverse opinion and reissued its report.

The firm selected for testing a control that included a review of the issuer's deferred tax assets and liabilities roll-forward schedule. The control owners used certain supporting schedules in the performance of this control but the firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the supporting schedules. (AS 2201.39)

The firm did not identify and evaluate a misstatement in a required disclosure under FASB ASC Topic 740 Income Taxes. The firm did not obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to support its opinion on the issuer's financial statements. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm did not perform any procedures to determine whether the issuer's presentation of a certain tax receivable as a current asset was appropriate. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the issuer's income tax provision deferred income tax accounts income tax accruals and related disclosures. (AS 2301.08)

The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of management's review of income tax provisions and tax returns. The firm did not evaluate the review procedures that the control owners performed including the criteria that the control owners used to identify items for follow up and whether those items were appropriately resolved. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

In addition the firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the information used in the performance of these controls. (AS 2201.39)

The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the issuer's review of income tax accounts. 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 issuer recorded a partial valuation allowance against its recorded deferred tax assets based on forecasted taxable income which included significant assumptions developed by the issuer that were also used in the issuer's intangible asset impairment assessment discussed above. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of these significant assumptions including taking into account the issuer's intent and ability to carry out these assumptions because its procedures were limited to inquiring of management and comparing these assumptions to historical financial information and written plans. Further the firm did not evaluate certain significant differences between the issuer's historical experience and these assumptions. (AS 2501.16 and .17)

The firm did not perform procedures to test the issuer's income tax provision and deferred tax accounts because its procedures were limited to inquiring of management and comparing forecasted taxable income to historical financial information and written plans. (AS 2301.08)

The firm selected for testing a control that included the issuer's review of the valuation allowance for its deferred tax assets related to its domestic and foreign operations. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to evaluate the evidence the issuer used to determine whether a valuation allowance was necessary. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the issuer's preparation and review of its tax provision including the control discussed above. The firm did not test the aspects of these controls that addressed the income tax expense and deferred taxes recorded for the issuer's foreign operations other than the aspect related to the valuation allowance as discussed above. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures to test the income tax expense and deferred taxes recorded for the issuer's foreign operations because the firm's procedures were limited to comparing balances from the tax provision to supporting documentation for only a small number of deferred tax assets and for only two of the issuer's foreign subsidiaries. (AS 2301.08)

For one of its foreign subsidiaries the issuer reported a full valuation allowance related to certain deferred tax assets. The firm concluded that the valuation allowance was appropriate without evaluating certain evidence that suggested that a valuation allowance may not be necessary. (AS 2501.11; AS 2810.03)

The firm identified a control deficiency related to inappropriate access for numerous users to the issuer's IT system that was used to process and record transactions related to revenue and income taxes. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the severity of this control deficiency because it limited its evaluation to inspecting activity logs of the users that had inappropriate access. (AS 2201.62)

The firm identified a control deficiency related to inappropriate access for numerous users to the issuer's IT system that was used to process and record transactions related to revenue and income taxes. The firm identified and tested various controls that it believed would mitigate this deficiency. The firm did not identify that these compensating controls did not address the risks related to inappropriate access for these users. (AS 2201.68)

During the year the issuer completed a restructuring of its foreign subsidiaries. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls over the issuer's evaluation of the tax considerations related to this restructuring. (AS 2201.39)

During the year the issuer completed a restructuring of its foreign subsidiaries. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate the issuer's conclusions related to the tax effects of the restructuring beyond reading a document the issuer's external specialist prepared that summarized the nature of the restructuring and the issuer's conclusions on the related tax considerations. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer reported an income tax benefit from tax exemptions that a foreign tax authority granted the issuer. These exemptions were subject to compliance with certain conditions. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the review of an analysis that the issuer used to determine whether it met those conditions. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to assess the issuer's compliance with those conditions. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer reported an income tax benefit from tax exemptions that a foreign tax authority granted the issuer. These exemptions were subject to compliance with certain conditions. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the review of an analysis that the issuer used to determine whether it met those conditions. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain information in the issuer's analysis that the control owner used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer reported an income tax benefit from tax exemptions that a foreign tax authority granted the issuer. These exemptions were subject to compliance with certain conditions. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate the issuer's compliance with those conditions. (AS 2301.08)