Explorer

The firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures to test certain of the issuer's revenue because its procedures were limited to vouching a sample of sales transactions recorded by the issuer to the bill of sale for each transaction. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer recorded revenue based on completed delivery of products to its customers. The firm tested certain transactions prior to year end to determine whether the issuer recorded revenue in the appropriate period. The firm however did not perform any procedures to verify that delivery had occurred before revenue was recorded. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform procedures to test certain revenue including whether all criteria for revenue recognition had been met. (AS 2301.08)

To test revenue the firm selected sales transactions for testing that exceeded a monetary threshold. The firm did not perform any procedures to test the remaining population of sales transactions. (AS 1105.27)

To test revenue the firm selected sales transactions for testing that exceeded a monetary threshold. For the sales transactions selected for testing the firm did not evaluate whether all of the relevant revenue recognition criteria had been met. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer recognized revenue from multiple revenue streams. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the occurrence of certain revenue. AS 2301.08)

With respect to other types of revenue that were recorded at certain of the issuer's business units ('other revenue types') the following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test these other revenue types. (AS 2301.08)

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

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed this area but did not identify the deficiency below. The firm's approach for substantively testing revenue consisted primarily of performing a software-assisted analysis to test the relationships among revenue accounts receivable 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 (1) identify and test any controls or (2) inspect any supporting documentation or perform other procedures to evaluate the appropriateness of the data. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer recognized revenue from a customer contract over time based on costs incurred to date relative to total estimated costs to complete the contract. The issuer used forecasted labor hours in determining the estimated costs to complete the contract. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not sufficiently test the estimated costs to complete the contract because it did not perform any substantive procedures beyond inquiring of issuer personnel to test the total forecasted labor hours. (AS 2501.07)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit reviewed these areas and also identified the deficiencies below. The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue at certain of the issuer's locations consisted of substantive analytical procedures. For these substantive analytical procedures the firm developed its expectations in part using data derived from the recorded amounts of revenue. The firm did not evaluate whether these data were sufficiently relevant and reliable for the purpose of achieving its audit objectives. (AS 1105.04 and .06; AS 2305.16)

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

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test sales returns. (AS 2301.08)

The firm's approach for substantively testing certain revenue was to test the issuer's process. To substantively test this revenue the firm performed tests of details over a sample of revenue transactions including recalculating the revenue and deferred revenue for the selected transactions. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate whether the revenue transactions were recorded in the proper period because it did not consider the appropriateness of the delivery dates used to recognize the revenue. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm's approach for substantively testing certain revenue was to test the issuer's process. To substantively test this revenue the firm performed tests of details over a sample of revenue transactions including recalculating the revenue and deferred revenue for the selected transactions. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not compare the recalculated revenue and deferred revenue to the issuer's general ledger for the revenue transactions selected for testing. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test or in the alternative test any controls over the completeness of a report obtained from the issuer that it used in its substantive procedures to test revenue. (AS 1105.10)

The firm did not perform substantive procedures beyond obtaining certain cash receipt evidence to evaluate (1) whether the performance obligations had been satisfied before revenue was recognized and (2) the accuracy of the transaction price used to record revenue. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm's approach for substantively testing revenue consisted primarily of performing a software-assisted analysis to test the relationships among revenue accounts receivable and cash receipts. The reliability of the audit evidence obtained from this analysis was dependent upon the firm's testing of cash receipts data underlying the analysis. To test this data the firm took a controls reliance approach. The firm selected for testing a control over the application of cash receipts from the bank statements to outstanding sales invoices that included the matching of unallocated cash receipts to the corresponding customer receivable accounts. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test or in the alternative test any controls over the completeness of the population of transactions from which it made its selections to test this control. (AS 1105.10)

The firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures to test certain revenue because the firm did not subject all relevant revenue transactions to these procedures as it did not compile a complete population of transactions from which it made its selections for testing and the firm did not perform any other procedures to test the remaining revenue transactions. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm's approach for substantively testing revenue consisted primarily of performing a software-assisted analysis to test the relationships among revenue accounts receivable and cash receipts. The reliability of the audit evidence obtained from this analysis was dependent upon the firm's testing of cash receipts data underlying the analysis. To test this data the firm agreed a sample of cash receipts to bank statements customer invoices and other documents such as packing lists delivery notes and transfer requests. The firm identified that certain cash receipts selected for testing did not relate to revenue and a corresponding receivable. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate whether the cash receipts data was appropriate for use in the analysis because it did not evaluate the implications of these unrelated cash receipts on the sufficiency and appropriateness of the data. (AS 1105.10)

For all three business units the firm's substantive procedures to test revenue consisted of testing samples of transactions. In performing its testing of the selected transactions the firm did not evaluate whether the selling prices that the issuer used to record revenue agreed with the terms in the customer contracts. (AS 2301.08)

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

The firm's approach for substantively testing certain revenue consisted primarily of performing a software-assisted analysis to test the relationships among revenue accounts receivable and cash receipts. The firm's approach to addressing the reliability of the audit evidence obtained from this type of analysis was dependent upon the firm's testing of certain controls over the data underlying the analysis and the firm's tests of details of the underlying data. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test and test controls over this underlying data. Specifically for one control the firm did not test (1) an aspect of the control that addressed whether the cash receipts were related to this revenue and (2) whether the control addressed all cash receipts used in this analysis. Further when performing its tests of details the firm did not select its sample from the data that was used in this analysis. (AS 1105.10)

The firm's approach for substantively testing certain revenue consisted primarily of performing a software-assisted analysis to test the relationships among revenue accounts receivable and cash receipts. The firm's approach to addressing the reliability of the audit evidence obtained from this type of analysis was dependent upon the firm's testing of certain data underlying the analysis. The firm did not sufficiently test this underlying data because it did not select its sample from the data that was used in this analysis. (AS 1105.10)

The firm's approach for substantively testing certain revenue consisted primarily of performing a software-assisted analysis to test the relationships among revenue accounts receivable and cash receipts. The firm's approach to addressing the reliability of the audit evidence obtained from this type of analysis was dependent upon the firm's testing of certain data underlying the analysis. The firm did not sufficiently test this underlying data because it tested a sample that was smaller than the one the firm determined necessary for these procedures. (AS 1105.10)

The firm's approach for substantively testing certain revenue consisted primarily of performing a software-assisted analysis to test the relationships among revenue accounts receivable and cash receipts. The firm's approach to addressing the reliability of the audit evidence obtained from this type of analysis was dependent upon the firm's testing of certain data underlying the analysis. The firm did not sufficiently test this underlying data because for certain cash selections the firm did not inspect external evidence or perform other procedures to evaluate whether the cash receipts related to this revenue. (AS 1105.10)

The firm's approach for substantively testing revenue consisted primarily of performing a software-assisted analysis to test the relationships among revenue accounts receivable and cash receipts. The firm's approach to addressing the reliability of the audit evidence obtained from this type of analysis was dependent upon the firm's testing of certain data underlying the analysis. The firm did not sufficiently test this underlying data because it did not select its sample from the entire population of data that was used in this analysis. (AS 1105.10)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test one type of revenue. (AS 2301.08)

The firm's approach for substantively testing another type of revenue consisted primarily of performing a software-assisted analysis to test the relationships among revenue accounts receivable and cash receipts. The reliability of the audit evidence obtained from this analysis was dependent upon the firm's testing of the cash receipts data underlying the analysis. The firm did not sufficiently test this underlying data because it did not evaluate whether it was appropriate to include in the analysis certain cash receipts not related to the revenue being tested. (AS 1105.10)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate whether the issuer's allocation of revenue to separate performance obligations was based on standalone selling prices. (AS 2301.08)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the above revenue and another type of revenue consisted primarily of performing a software-assisted analysis to test the relationships among revenue accounts receivable and cash receipts. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test this revenue as follows: · For the first type of revenue discussed above the reliability of the audit evidence obtained from this analysis was dependent upon the firm's testing of a control over the data underlying the analysis. The firm did not evaluate whether the control selected for testing addressed all the cash receipts used in this analysis. (AS 1105.10)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the above revenue and another type of revenue consisted primarily of performing a software-assisted analysis to test the relationships among revenue accounts receivable and cash receipts. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test this revenue as follows: · For the second type of revenue the reliability of the audit evidence obtained from this analysis was dependent upon the firm's testing of details of certain data underlying the analysis. The sample the firm tested for the fourth quarter was smaller than the one the firm determined necessary for these procedures. (AS 1105.10)

With respect to user access: · The firm selected for testing another control that consisted of the review of new and modified user access tickets. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the completeness of the user access list from which it made its selections to test this control because it did not (1) evaluate whether the user access list was a customizable report and (2) test any customization used to generate the user access list. (AS 1105.10)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to (1) evaluate the reasonableness of the performance obligations identified and (2) test the standalone selling price used to allocate revenue to separate performance obligations. (AS 2301.08)

The firm performed substantive procedures to test certain revenue as of an interim date. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to extend its conclusions from the interim date to year end because it did not (1) compare relevant information about this revenue at the interim date with comparable information at year end to identify amounts that appear unusual and investigate such amounts and (2) perform audit procedures to test the remaining period beyond performing a correlation analysis without testing the underlying data used in this analysis. (AS 2301.45)

The issuer's revenue included revenue recognized from contracts over time based on costs incurred to date relative to total estimated costs to complete. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm used certain data in its substantive testing of revenue but did not perform any procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy and/or completeness of these data. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer recorded revenue at certain of the issuer's locations net of customer discounts rebates and other deductions. The following deficiencies were identified: · For certain of these locations the firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test these sales deductions. (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. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform substantive procedures to evaluate the accuracy of the issuer's disclosures related to standalone selling prices under FASB ASC Topic 606. (AS 2301.08) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its controls over the methods it used to estimate standalone selling prices 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 issuer also reevaluated its disclosures related to standalone selling prices and determined that a disclosure was misstated. The issuer corrected this misstatement in an amended Form 10-K.

The firm's substantive procedures to test this revenue included selecting a sample of transactions for testing. For certain of the transactions selected for testing the firm did not obtain and evaluate the customer contract to assess whether revenue was appropriately recognized. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer recognized revenue from one of its products net of rebates and other sales incentives that it estimated based on certain historical data. The firm did not sufficiently test the completeness of these data because it did not test whether these data included all contractual rebates and other sales incentives owed to the customer. (AS 1105.10)

The firm's substantive procedures to test certain revenue included selecting a sample of transactions for testing. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test these transactions because its procedures were limited to comparing the transactions to information from the same system from which the transactions were selected. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures to test revenue because the firm did not evaluate whether certain revenue selected for testing was recorded in the appropriate period. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer presented as a component of revenue in its statement of operations a material transaction that was of an unusual nature and infrequent occurrence. FASB ASC Topic 220 Income Statement requires such events or transactions to be reported as a separate component of income from continuing operations. The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the appropriateness of the issuer's presentation of such transactions as a component of revenue. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

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

In testing certain revenue the firm did not evaluate the terms of the services between the issuer and its customers. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform a substantive test of details over revenue. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of certain external data the issuer used to record revenue and that the firm used in its testing of revenue. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The firm did not perform procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy of certain data used in its substantive testing of the issuer's revenue disclosures. (AS 1105.10)

The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reliability of certain information used in its substantive testing of revenue. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The issuer offered various forms of sales incentives to customers that were recorded as a reduction of revenue with a corresponding liability for sales incentives earned but not yet settled. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform substantive procedures to evaluate the appropriateness of the issuer's (1) presentation of accrued sales incentives as a liability and (2) disclosures related to sales incentives in order to evaluate whether the issuer's presentation and disclosures conformed with GAAP. (AS 2810.30 and .31)