Explorer

The firm's substantive procedures to test one type of revenue consisted of testing a sample of revenue transactions. For certain items in its sample the firm did not perform procedures to evaluate whether the issuer met certain revenue recognition criteria. (AS 2301.08)

Certain of the issuer's revenue arrangements included multiple performance obligations. The issuer allocated the total transaction price for each of these arrangements to the separate performance obligations based on the relative standalone selling prices. With respect to revenue at one business unit the firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the standalone selling prices that the issuer used. (AS 2301.08)

For this type of revenue the issuer entered into arrangements where it could either be acting in the capacity of a principal or an agent and as a result would record revenue on either a gross or net basis. The following additional deficiencies were identified: · The firm's substantive procedures to test this revenue included testing a sample of revenue transactions. For the transactions selected for testing the firm did not evaluate whether the issuer was acting as a principal or as an agent for this revenue. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

For two types of revenue one of which was affected by other audit deficiencies certain of the issuer's revenue arrangements included multiple performance obligations. The issuer allocated the total transaction price for each of these arrangements to the separate performance obligations based on the relative standalone selling prices. The following additional deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to test or test any controls over the completeness of the information the issuer used to estimate the standalone selling prices. (AS 1105.10)

For two types of revenue one of which was affected by other audit deficiencies certain of the issuer's revenue arrangements included multiple performance obligations. The issuer allocated the total transaction price for each of these arrangements to the separate performance obligations based on the relative standalone selling prices. The following additional deficiencies were identified: · For certain contracts the firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test whether the allocation of the transaction price was based on standalone selling prices. (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 issuer recorded revenue at the time its services were provided to its customers. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test whether the performance obligation had been fully satisfied before revenue was recognized. (AS 2301.08)

For certain revenue at one business unit the following deficiencies were identified: · As a result of the deficiency identified the firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test or sufficiently test controls over the completeness of a report used in its substantive testing. (AS 1105.10)

For one of these two business units the firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test whether the performance obligation was satisfied before revenue was recognized for the first 10 months of the year. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer used a service organization to accumulate revenue data initiated in and processed by the issuer's various IT systems and the issuer recorded certain revenue based on these data. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to test or identify and test controls over the accuracy and/or completeness of certain of these data that the firm used in its substantive testing of this revenue. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer recognized certain revenue based on customer activity that was tracked using the issuer's various IT systems and it used service organizations to process customer payments. The firm's approach for substantively testing certain of this revenue consisted primarily of performing a software-assisted analysis to test the relationships between revenue and cash receipts. The reliability of the audit evidence obtained from this analysis was dependent upon the firm's testing of the underlying data. The firm did not sufficiently test the accuracy of the underlying data because the firm did not perform any procedures to (1) test or test controls over certain internally generated information that it used and (2) test the issuer's complementary user controls that the service auditor's reports described as necessary to rely on this payment information. (AS 1105.10; 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 used information produced by the issuer in its testing of transaction prices but did not perform any procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy and/or completeness of certain of this information. (AS 1105.10)

For another business unit the issuer contracted with an external party to manufacture and sell products on behalf of the issuer and recognized the associated revenue based on information it obtained from this external party. The following deficiencies were identified: · The issuer recognized certain of this revenue based on sales of this product to the external party. The firm obtained and used information from the external party in its substantive testing of this revenue but did not perform procedures to evaluate the reliability of this information. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

For another business unit the issuer contracted with an external party to manufacture and sell products on behalf of the issuer and recognized the associated revenue based on information it obtained from this external party. The following deficiencies were identified: · The issuer recognized certain of this revenue based on sales of this product to the external party. The firm did not evaluate the terms and conditions included in the issuer's sales contract with the external party. (AS 2301.08)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit reviewed these areas and also identified the deficiencies below. For certain revenue the following additional deficiencies were identified: · For one type of revenue the firm did not perform substantive procedures to test whether performance obligations had been satisfied before revenue was recognized beyond comparisons to customer payments and/or issuer-produced information. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit reviewed these areas and also identified the deficiencies below. For certain revenue the following additional deficiencies were identified: · For another type of revenue the firm's substantive procedures consisted of selecting a sample of transactions for testing. For certain transactions the firm did not perform procedures to test or test controls over the accuracy of certain issuer-produced information that the firm used in its testing. (AS 1105.10)

For this revenue the following additional deficiencies were identified: · The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue included testing a sample of transactions. The firm did not perform any procedures to test whether performance obligations were satisfied before revenue was recognized. (AS 2301.08)

As a result of the firm's control testing deficiencies the firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures over revenue as follows: · The firm did not perform procedures to test or sufficiently test controls over the completeness of certain reports that the firm used in its substantive testing of revenue. (AS 1105.10)

The firm's substantive procedures to test certain revenue included selecting a sample of transactions for testing. For certain of these selections the firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate whether the customer contracts met the collectability criteria required to recognize revenue under FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers because these customers did not meet one or more of the issuer's established credit policies and the firm did not evaluate the basis on which the customer or transaction was approved. (AS 2301.08)

The firm selected a sample of transactions to test that revenue was appropriately recognized. In its sample the firm did not test certain aspects of the transactions including valuation. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not test the completeness of data used in its substantive procedures to test cut-off. (AS 1105.10)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the reliability of reports obtained from the issuer's franchisees that it used in its substantive procedures because it limited its procedures to performing a walkthrough of the issuer's process to access the reports and vouching certain transactions. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed this area but did not identify certain of the deficiency below. For certain types of revenue the firm used certain emails from the issuer's customers as audit evidence to test these types of revenue but did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether the information included in these emails was reliable. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed this area but did not identify certain of the deficiency below. For another type of revenue that included an estimate of variable consideration in the transaction price the following deficiency was identified: · The firm's procedures to test the occurrence of this revenue consisted of testing a sample of transactions from the last month of the year. The firm did not perform any procedures to test the remaining population of this revenue. (AS 2315.24)

The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue included testing a sample of transactions. The firm did not perform any procedures to test whether the performance obligation was satisfied before revenue was recognized. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm's substantive procedures to test certain revenue included testing a sample of transactions. The firm did not perform any procedures to test whether the performance obligation was satisfied before revenue was recognized. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue consisted of selecting a sample of transactions for testing. The following deficiencies were identified: · For certain transactions selected for testing the firm did not perform any procedures to test whether the performance obligations had been satisfied before revenue was recognized. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue consisted of selecting a sample of transactions for testing. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate whether the issuer (1) was acting as a principal or as an agent and (2) appropriately disclosed whether revenue was recognized at a point in time or over time. (AS 2301.08)

The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue consisted of selecting a sample of transactions for testing. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test these transactions because it did not test (1) whether the issuer had a valid contract with the customer and (2) the issuer's determination of the transaction price. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm's substantive procedures to test two types of revenue included selecting a sample of transactions for testing. The following deficiencies were identified: · For one of these revenue types the issuer recognized revenue for certain of these transactions based on labor hours recorded in the issuer's time system. The firm did not perform procedures to test the appropriateness of the labor hours allocated to these transactions. (AS 2301.08)

The firm's substantive procedures to test two types of revenue included selecting a sample of transactions for testing. The following deficiencies were identified: · For both of these revenue types the firm did not evaluate whether the issuer was acting as a principal or as an agent for these transactions. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate whether the issuer met the revenue recognition criteria prior to recognizing revenue. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate whether the issuer met the revenue recognition criteria prior to recognizing revenue. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm used certain price and quantity information from outside sources in its substantive testing of revenue but did not perform any procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of such information. (AS 1105.04 and .06; AS 2502.40)

The firm did not perform procedures to test whether services had been rendered prior to the issuer's recognition of certain service revenue. (AS 2301.08)

With respect to Revenue the firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test revenue. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer operates a recreational vehicle (RV) resort and earns revenue from site rental fees. The issuer also earns revenue from other services and from retail sales from a general store and recreational vehicle parts store. For revenue recognized from retail sales and one type of service the firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test this revenue. (AS 2301.08 and .11)

The firm designed certain of its substantive procedures to test revenue as a dual-purpose test. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing as part of this dual-purpose test a control that consisted of the issuer's review of the shipping terms between the shipping documents and the issuer's revenue system. The firm did not evaluate whether this control was designed to achieve the desired audit objective for all relevant assertions given the control was limited to the review of the shipping terms. (AS 2301.13 .19 and .47)

The issuer reported several types of revenue. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to examine a material adjustment the issuer made to revenue during the course of preparing the financial statements. (AS 2301.41)

The issuer reported several types of revenue. The following deficiency was identified: • For one type of revenue the firm did not perform procedures to evaluate whether the issuer satisfied its performance obligations before recognizing revenue. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer reported several types of revenue. The following deficiency was identified: • For other types of revenue the firm did not perform procedures to evaluate whether the issuer satisfied its performance obligations beyond obtaining evidence of cash receipts or an issuerprepared schedule in certain instances. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the reliability of external information it used to test certain revenue beyond comparing certain of the information to an issuer-produced report that was itself based on that external information. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test revenue. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer recognized certain revenue at the time risk of loss was transferred to the customer and also recorded subsequent adjustments to revenue based on information related to quality issues and the final sales price. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected a sample of sales transactions during the year to test. The firm did not test the prices or evaluate the terms and conditions. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer recognized certain revenue at the time risk of loss was transferred to the customer and also recorded subsequent adjustments to revenue based on information related to quality issues and the final sales price. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not test any adjustments made in the fourth quarter. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer recognized certain revenue at the time risk of loss was transferred to the customer and also recorded subsequent adjustments to revenue based on information related to quality issues and the final sales price. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected a sample of sales transactions to test cut-off. The firm did not test certain transactions selected for testing. (AS 2301.08)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate whether the issuer had satisfied its performance obligations prior to recognizing these two types of revenue because it limited its procedures to reviewing certain external information and/or testing that the issuer had received cash. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. With respect to these two types of revenue and another type of revenue the firm did not perform procedures to evaluate whether the issuer met certain other revenue recognition criteria prior to recognizing revenue. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

For revenue recognized from certain customers the firm did not perform procedures to determine whether the transactions selected for testing met the revenue recognition criteria. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the disclosures of vouchers from government programs as 'government grants' that may have suggested that the 'grants' were for the economic benefit of the issuer and that IAS 20 Accounting for Government Grants and Disclosure of Government Assistance was applicable. (AS 2301.08) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its disclosures regarding government grants and determined that misstatements existed in disclosures that had not been previously identified. The issuer did not file an amended Form 20-F or Form 6-K indicating that its previously issued financial statements should not be relied on. Instead the issuer corrected these misstatements in a subsequent filing by revising the disclosures.

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate information that appeared to indicate that all revenue recognition criteria may not have been met. The firm's procedures were limited to inquiry of management and internal counsel and inspecting a delivery document that did not include information related to the contents of the package and/or the name of the entity receiving the delivery. (AS 2301.08; AS 2810.03)