Explorer

The firm did not evaluate the appropriateness of the presentation of certain long-lived assets. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer performed an assessment of certain of its long-lived assets for possible impairment at year end and concluded that the carrying value of these assets was recoverable. The firm did not identify that the issuer did not consider an indicator of possible impairment in its assessment of the recoverability of these assets. (AS 2301.08)

To substantively test long-lived assets the firm selected additions to and disposals of long-lived assets that exceeded a monetary threshold. The firm did not perform any procedures to test the remaining population of additions and disposals. (AS 1105.27; AS 2301.08)

During the year the issuer completed an analysis to evaluate long-lived assets for recoverability because it identified events and changes in circumstances that indicated that the carrying amount may not be recoverable. The firm did not evaluate beyond inquiry and reading the issuer's analysis how this qualitative analysis supported the recoverability of the assets. (AS 2301.08)

The firm selected a sample of additions to long-lived assets. The firm did not test certain transactions selected for testing. In addition with respect to assets under construction the firm did not test the existence of these assets and the status of the projects including whether the construction had been delayed or suspended which could indicate potential impairment. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test disposals because it limited its procedures to testing the authorization of each disposal selected for testing. (AS 2301.08 .16 .18 and .37)

In testing a long-lived asset the firm identified certain indicators of potential impairment. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate whether the carrying value of the asset was recoverable because it limited its procedures to confirming the terms of the underlying agreement and making inquiries of the issuer. (AS 2501.07)

To substantively test long-lived asset additions the firm selected additions for testing that exceeded a monetary threshold. The firm did not perform any procedures to test the remaining population of long-lived asset additions. (AS 1105.27; AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the capitalization of interest costs associated with the construction of certain long-lived assets. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform any procedures to test the appropriateness of the capitalization of certain costs to long-lived assets. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test certain long-lived assets and depreciation expense. (AS 2301.08)

For certain other long-lived assets the following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test these long-lived assets for possible impairment beyond reading an issuer-prepared memorandum. (AS 2301.08)

For another of the issuer's long-lived assets the firm did not evaluate the appropriateness of the issuer's conclusion that an impairment assessment was not required even though an impairment indicator existed for this long-lived asset. (AS 2301.08)

During the year the issuer identified that events or changes in circumstances existed indicating that the carrying value of certain long-lived assets may not be recoverable. The firm did not evaluate whether these events or changes in circumstances indicated that the carrying amounts of certain other long-lived assets may not be recoverable. (AS 2301.08)

The firm was instructed by the principal auditor to evaluate the reliability of certain external information used by the issuer in its qualitative assessment of impairment of a certain long-lived asset. The firm was unable to evaluate the reliability of this information. Instead the firm compared the information used by the issuer to other information independently obtained by the firm that it believed was comparable to information used by the issuer. The firm however did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reliability of the information it independently obtained. Further the firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the relevance of this information beyond one consideration. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The issuer capitalized expenditures related to the development of a long-lived asset. The firm did not perform substantive procedures beyond inquiry to determine whether the expenditures qualified for capitalization as a long-lived asset. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer held certain long-lived assets that were recorded at cost and reviewed by the issuer for indicators of potential impairment. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the existence of these long-lived assets. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not test whether (1) long-lived assets were appropriately classified to ensure that these assets were depreciated over the appropriate useful lives and (2) all disposals of long-lived assets were recorded by the issuer. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer capitalized certain employee and contractor labor costs to long-lived assets. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm used employee and contractor hours derived from the issuer's time recording system in its substantive testing of these capitalized labor costs. The firm did not test or (as discussed above) test or sufficiently test controls over the accuracy of the employee or contractor hours. (AS 1105.10)

The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate whether certain transactions were appropriately capitalized in accordance with the applicable accounting standard. (AS 2301.08 and .11)

For one asset the issuer performed an assessment of this asset for possible impairment and concluded that it was recoverable. The firm did not identify that the issuer did not consider certain indicators of possible impairment in its assessment of this asset. (AS 2301.08 and .11; AS 2810.03)

The firm did not perform substantive procedures to evaluate the relevance of the inputs used to estimate the fair value of the acquired land beyond determining that the acquired land was adjacent to land previously acquired by the issuer during the year. (AS 2502.26 .28 and .31)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test additions to long-lived assets. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the estimated useful lives assigned to the issuer's property and equipment because it limited its procedures to comparing the useful lives to information from an external source. Further the firm did not evaluate the relevance and reliability of the information. (AS 1105.04 and .06; AS 2501.07)

The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the issuer's conclusion that there were no indicators of potential impairment even though the firm was aware that such conditions existed. (AS 2301.08; AS 2810.03)

The firm did not evaluate the effect of certain impairment indicators on whether the carrying value of long-lived assets was recoverable. (AS 2301.08; AS 2810.03)

The firm did not perform any procedures to test the additions made to long-lived assets during the year. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer performed an assessment of this long-lived asset for possible impairment and concluded that it was recoverable. The firm did not identify that the issuer did not consider certain indicators of possible impairment in its assessment of this asset. (AS 2301.08 and .11; AS 2810.03)

During the year events or changes in circumstances existed indicating that the carrying value of the issuer's long-lived assets may not be recoverable and the issuer performed assessments of its long-lived assets for possible impairment. The following deficiencies were identified: · The issuer concluded that the carrying amount of one asset group was recoverable. The firm did not identify that the issuer did not consider certain indicators of possible impairment in its assessment of these assets. (AS 2301.08; AS 2810.03)

During the year events or changes in circumstances existed indicating that the carrying value of the issuer's long-lived assets may not be recoverable and the issuer performed assessments of its long-lived assets for possible impairment. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm's approach for substantively testing the issuer's impairment assessment for a third asset group was to develop independent expectations of the fair values of these assets. The firm did not evaluate the relevance and reliability of external information used in developing its independent expectations. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate a difference it identified in its testing of long-lived assets. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test certain long-lived assets for possible impairment. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer performed an assessment of certain of its long-lived assets for possible impairment at year end and concluded that the carrying value of these assets was recoverable. The firm did not identify that the issuer did not consider certain indicators of possible impairment in its assessment of these assets. (AS 2301.08; AS 2810.03)

The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether certain assets met the definition of property plant and equipment in accordance with IAS 16 Property Plant and Equipment because the firm did not evaluate the business purpose of the assets beyond inquiry of management. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer recorded impairments related to certain long-lived assets during the year. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of certain information from external sources that the issuer used in an impairment calculation. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the useful lives for certain long-lived assets because it did not evaluate the significant differences between this assumption the significant assumption used by the issuer in an impairment calculation and industry information. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer recorded impairments related to certain long-lived assets during the year. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to test another portion of an impairment including whether it was appropriate to record the impairment. (AS 2301.08 and .11)

The firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures to test transfers of the long-lived assets between asset categories because it tested transfers for one quarter which did not constitute audit sampling and therefore the testing results could not be projected to the population of transfers during the year. (AS 2315.24)

The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate certain indicators of potential impairment that existed at year end. (AS 2301.08; AS 2810.03)

For all but one of the issuer's asset groups the firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate certain indicators of potential impairment that existed at year end. (AS 2301.08 and .11; AS 2810.03)

The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate whether there were indicators of potential impairment for certain long-lived assets and right of use assets beyond reading the issuer's impairment policy. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer capitalized expenditures for a long-lived asset. The firm selected certain additions for testing but did not perform any procedures to determine whether these additions qualified for capitalization including for one selection evaluating contradictory evidence in the work papers. (AS 2301.08; AS 2810.03)

For certain long-lived assets the firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether the assets were impaired. (AS 2301.08 and .11)

For certain other long-lived assets the firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate whether there were impairment indicators because it limited its procedures to inquiry of management and using market data without evaluating the relevance and reliability of this data. Further the firm did not perform any procedures to address contrary evidence of which it was aware. (AS 2301.08 and .11; AS 1105.04 and .06; AS 2810.03)