Explorer

The issuer used various service organizations to process certain revenue transactions and recorded the related revenue based on information provided by the service organizations. The firm obtained the service auditors' reports which specified necessary user controls that addressed the accuracy and completeness of this information. The firm used this information in its substantive testing of this revenue but did not test or test the user controls over the accuracy and completeness of this information. (AS 2601.14)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate whether certain revenue was recognized in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers (“ASC Topic 606”) because it did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether revenue was recognized as the issuer's performance obligation was satisfied. (AS 2301.08 and .11)

The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue included testing a sample of transactions. 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 the firm did not identify and test any controls over revenue. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate whether certain revenue was recognized in conformity with ASC Topic 606 because it did not perform any procedures to test whether the revenue was recognized when the issuer's performance obligation was satisfied. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate whether the amounts reflected in certain of the issuer's revenue disclosures were accurate and complete beyond performing non-substantive analytical procedures. (AS 2301.08)

For certain other revenue the following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the transaction price because it did not evaluate whether the promised consideration included variable consideration. (AS 2301.08)

For certain other revenue the following deficiency was identified: · The firm's substantive procedures to test this revenue included testing a sample of transactions. The sample size the firm used 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 the firm did not identify and test any controls over the revenue. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

For certain other revenue the following deficiency was identified: · The firm's substantive procedures to test this revenue included testing a sample of transactions. The firm did not take into account appropriate factors in determining its sample size including its established tolerable misstatement for the population the allowable risk of incorrect acceptance and the characteristics of the population. (AS 2315.16 .23 and .23A)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The issuer used certain data to recognize certain revenue. The firm did not identify and test controls over the accuracy and completeness of this data. (AS 2201.39)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The issuer used certain data to recognize certain revenue. The firm used this data to substantively test certain revenue. The firm did not perform any procedures to test or identify and test controls over the accuracy and completeness of this data as discussed above. (AS 1105.10)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. With respect to certain revenue the firm did not test whether (1) a contractual arrangement was entered into with the customer (2) the issuer satisfied its performance obligations prior to the recognition of revenue (3) the issuer had rights and obligations to the customer payments and (4) the rate charged to the customer was in accordance with the terms of the arrangement. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm did not evaluate the relevance and reliability of external data it used to test this revenue. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The firm did not identify and evaluate departures from GAAP related to the issuer's omission of certain disclosures related to revenue required by FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm did not evaluate the accuracy of the issuer's disclosure regarding the timing of when certain revenue was recognized including consideration of contrary evidence included in the firm's audit work papers. (AS 2301.08 and .13; AS 2810.03)

The firm did not evaluate whether a promised good related to this revenue was a separate performance obligation. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

For revenue that was generally earned upon receipt of the products by customers the firm selected a sample of revenue transactions from sales commission listings obtained from the issuer and performed certain substantive procedures to test revenue. The following deficiencies were identified: - The sample size the firm used 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 because the firm did not identify and test any controls over revenue. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

For revenue that was generally earned upon receipt of the products by customers the firm selected a sample of revenue transactions from sales commission listings obtained from the issuer and performed certain substantive procedures to test revenue. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not take into account appropriate factors in determining its sample size including its established tolerable misstatement for the population the allowable risk of incorrect acceptance and the characteristics of the population. (AS 2315.16 .19 .23 and .23A)

For revenue that was generally earned upon receipt of the products by customers the firm selected a sample of revenue transactions from sales commission listings obtained from the issuer and performed certain substantive procedures to test revenue. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not determine that the population of sales commission data from which the sample was drawn was appropriate for the specific audit objective of testing recorded revenue. (AS 2315.17)

For revenue that was generally earned upon receipt of the products by customers the firm selected a sample of revenue transactions from sales commission listings obtained from the issuer and performed certain substantive procedures to test revenue. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test or in the alternative identify and test controls over the accuracy and completeness of the population of revenue transactions from the sales commission listings used to select the sample of revenue transactions. (AS 1105.10)

For revenue that was generally earned upon receipt of the products by customers the firm selected a sample of revenue transactions from sales commission listings obtained from the issuer and performed certain substantive procedures to test revenue. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate whether the issuer had recognized revenue in the proper period because for certain of the revenue transactions selected for testing the firm did not perform procedures to test whether revenue had been recognized after the specific products ordered were received by the customers. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer used an application to process revenue transactions and maintain related data. A service organization provided software and data center hosting services related to this application. The firm did not evaluate whether the service auditor's report provided sufficient evidence because the firm did not assess the scope of the examination and applications covered the controls tested the way in which tested controls relate to the issuer's controls and the results of those tests of controls. (AS 2201.B21)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of revenue and was dependent on system information. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the design of this control because the firm did not identify that the procedures that the control owner performed to ensure that the system information was accurate and complete were limited to reviewing the parameters that were applied to generate the system information. (AS 2201.42)

The issuer used an application to process revenue transactions and maintain related data. A service organization provided software and data center hosting services related to this application. The firm did not perform any procedures to ascertain whether there were any changes in the service organization's controls from the date of the service auditor's report to year end given the length of period under audit not covered by the service auditor's report. (AS 2201.39 .B24 and .B25)

The issuer used an application to process revenue transactions and maintain related data. A service organization provided software and data center hosting services related to this application. The application interfaced with a revenue recognition and reporting application. The firm selected for testing controls over change management for these applications. The firm did not evaluate whether users with access to develop program changes also had the ability to implement program changes. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer used an application to process revenue transactions and maintain related data. A service organization provided software and data center hosting services related to this application. The application interfaced with a revenue recognition and reporting application. The firm tested a control over the periodic review of access to these two applications at an interim date but did not perform any procedures to update the results of that testing from the interim date to year end. (AS 2201.55)

The firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures to test or identify and test controls over the completeness of reports it used to make selections for testing these change management controls and certain other controls over logical access because it limited its procedures to observing the issuer generate the reports. (AS 1105.10)

The firm did not identify and test any controls over changes and privileged access to the database that supports these two applications. (AS 2201.39)

The firm tested information technology (IT) dependent manual controls that used reports generated by the two applications. The firm's approach to test the accuracy and completeness of these reports depended on effective IT general controls. In addition the firm tested certain automated application controls within the two applications as of a point in time. As a result of the above deficiencies the firm's testing of these controls was not sufficient. (AS 2201.46)

Certain of the issuer's contracts contained multiple performance obligations. The firm selected a sample of contracts for testing. The firm did not perform substantive procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the allocation of the transaction price to the separate performance obligations for the contracts selected with multiple performance obligations. (AS 2301.08)

Certain of the issuer's contracts contained multiple performance obligations. The firm selected a sample of contracts for testing. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test that performance obligations were satisfied for certain of the contracts because the firm limited its procedures to obtaining reports from the issuer. (AS 2301.08)

The sample size the firm used in one of its substantive procedures to test revenue was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because this procedure was designed based on a level of reliance on evidence from other substantive procedures that was not supported due to the deficiency in the firm's substantive analytical procedure discussed above. (AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The issuer recognized multiple types of revenue. The following deficiency was identified: · For one type of revenue the firm did not perform procedures to evaluate whether the underlying contracts represented contracts with an identifiable customer in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer recognized multiple types of revenue. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform substantive procedures to evaluate the relevance and/or reliability of certain external information it used to test two types of revenue. (AS 1105.04 and.06)

The issuer recognized multiple types of revenue. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm's substantive procedures to test one type of revenue included performing substantive analytical procedures. The firm used external data in developing its expectation but did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reliability of that data. (AS 2305.16)

The issuer recognized multiple types of revenue. 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 information it used to test two types of revenue. (AS 1105.10)

The firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures to evaluate whether certain revenue was recognized in conformity with IFRS 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers because it did not evaluate beyond reading the issuer's revenue recognition policy (1) each party's rights regarding the goods or services to be transferred and (2) the payment terms for the goods or services to be transferred. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

To evaluate the reliability of certain external information the firm used to test revenue the firm sent a positive confirmation request to the external party and received an electronic response. The firm did not consider performing procedures to address the risks associated with the electronic response such as verifying the source and contents of the confirmation response. (AS 2310.29)

The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reliability of certain external information it used to test revenue. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The firm's substantive procedures to test this revenue included performing a substantive analytical procedure. The firm used external data in developing its expectation but did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reliability of that data. (AS 2305.16)

The issuer used two information-technology (IT) systems to initiate process and/or record transactions related to certain revenue recognized at various locations. In its testing of controls over this revenue the firm tested two IT-dependent manual controls that used data and reports generated or maintained by these IT systems. The accuracy and completeness of these data and reports depended on effective IT general controls (ITGCs). The firm however did not test the operating effectiveness of the ITGCs over these IT systems. (AS 2201.44)

The issuer recognized revenue from contracts that included multiple performance obligations and allocated the total transaction price to the separate performance obligations based on relative standalone selling prices (SSPs). The firm selected a sample of transactions to test revenue. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm used issuer-prepared reports to substantively test revenue but did not perform any procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of these reports. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer recognized revenue from contracts that included multiple performance obligations and allocated the total transaction price to the separate performance obligations based on relative standalone selling prices (SSPs). The firm selected a sample of transactions to test revenue. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the appropriateness of the issuer's (1) determination of transaction price and (2) allocation of the transaction price to each performance obligation because the firm did not evaluate the effect of a sales discount on the transaction price and did not test the SSPs used to allocate revenue to the separate performance obligations. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer recognized revenue from contracts that included multiple performance obligations and allocated the total transaction price to the separate performance obligations based on relative standalone selling prices (SSPs). The firm selected a sample of transactions to test revenue. The following deficiencies were identified: · The issuer recognized certain revenue based on electronic activity. The firm used activity information produced by the issuer to evaluate whether the issuer satisfied its performance obligations related to this revenue but did not perform any procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of this information. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer recognized revenue from contracts that included multiple performance obligations and allocated the total transaction price to the separate performance obligations based on relative standalone selling prices (SSPs). The firm selected a sample of transactions to test revenue. The following deficiencies were identified: · The issuer recognized certain other revenue over the performance period. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test whether the issuer satisfied its performance obligations because the firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of the performance period. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer recognized revenue from contracts that included multiple performance obligations and allocated the total transaction price to the separate performance obligations based on relative SSPs. The firm's approach for testing the allocation of revenue to the separate performance obligations was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not sufficiently evaluate whether the residual method that the issuer used to allocate the transaction price to the separate performance obligations was in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers because the firm did not evaluate whether the SSPs of certain performance obligations were highly variable. (AS 2501.10)

The issuer recognized revenue from contracts that included multiple performance obligations and allocated the total transaction price to the separate performance obligations based on relative SSPs. The firm's approach for testing the allocation of revenue to the separate performance obligations was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not sufficiently evaluate whether the issuer had a reasonable basis for the SSP of a performance obligation for certain transactions. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer used two information-technology (IT) systems to initiate process and/or record transactions related to certain revenue recognized at various locations. In its testing of controls over this revenue the firm tested two IT-dependent manual controls that used data and reports generated or maintained by these IT systems. The accuracy and completeness of these data and reports depended on effective IT general controls (ITGCs). As a result of the deficiency in the firm's testing of ITGCs the firm's testing of these IT-dependent manual controls was not sufficient. (AS 2201.46)

The firm identified certain of the issuer's locations as “in-scope” locations for purposes of testing controls over the revenue. The firm selected for testing certain controls over the processing and recording of the revenue that consisted of the issuer's review and/or approval of (1) the detail sales price list (2) sales price and other information in contracts (3) certain sales reports and (4) changes in estimated contract costs. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the operating effectiveness of these controls because the firm did not test the operating effectiveness of the controls at certain “in-scope” locations which reported a significant amount of the revenue. (AS 2201.44)

The firm identified certain of the issuer's locations as “in-scope” locations for purposes of testing controls over the revenue. The firm selected for testing certain controls over the processing and recording of the revenue that consisted of the issuer's review and/or approval of (1) the detail sales price list (2) sales price and other information in contracts (3) certain sales reports and (4) changes in estimated contract costs. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the lists from which it selected its samples for testing. (AS 1105.10)

The firm identified certain of the issuer's locations as “in-scope” locations for purposes of testing controls over the revenue. The firm selected for testing certain controls over the processing and recording of the revenue that consisted of the issuer's review and/or approval of (1) the detail sales price list (2) sales price and other information in contracts (3) certain sales reports and (4) changes in estimated contract costs. The following deficiencies were identified: · For two of these controls both of which involved the issuer's review of estimated revenue and contract costs the firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to assess the appropriateness of these estimates. (AS 2201.42 and .44)