Explorer

The issuer recognized several types of revenue. The following deficiencies were identified: · For a second type of revenue the firm did not evaluate the appropriateness of the issuer's identification of performance obligations. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer recognized several types of revenue. The following deficiencies were identified: · For the second type of revenue the firm selected a sample of transactions for testing. The firm did not perform procedures to test whether revenue was appropriately recognized for the sampled transactions beyond obtaining cash receipts. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer recognized several types of revenue. The following deficiencies were identified: · For a third type of revenue the firm did not perform procedures to evaluate whether the issuer had satisfied its performance obligations beyond obtaining cash receipts for certain transactions. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not perform substantive procedures to test an estimate related to revenue beyond recalculating the amount. (AS 2501.07)

For certain revenue the firm did not sufficiently evaluate whether there was a contract with a customer. Specifically the firm did not assess whether it was probable that the issuer would collect substantially all of the consideration to which it would be entitled in exchange for the goods or services that would be transferred to the customer before revenue was recognized including consideration of contradictory evidence. (AS 2301.08 and .13; AS 2810.03)

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 other revenue the firm vouched monthly total cash receipts for certain payment methods for certain months to bank statements and for the remaining months selected three cash receipts per month and vouched them to bank statements. 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 internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. With respect to certain other revenue the firm vouched monthly total cash receipts for certain payment methods for certain months to bank statements and for the remaining months selected three cash receipts per month and vouched them to bank statements. The firm did not: · Evaluate the relevance of the cash receipts information that was used in its testing; (AS 1105.04 and .06)

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 other revenue the firm vouched monthly total cash receipts for certain payment methods for certain months to bank statements and for the remaining months selected three cash receipts per month and vouched them to bank statements. The firm did not: · Perform any procedures to test contra revenue. (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. With respect to another type of revenue the firm (1) obtained an issuer-produced summary of daily sales reports for the year and compared the total sales to the general ledger and (2) vouched total cash receipts recorded for the year in the general ledger for that type of revenue to bank statements noting a difference between the amounts. 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 internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. With respect to another type of revenue the firm (1) obtained an issuer-produced summary of daily sales reports for the year and compared the total sales to the general ledger and (2) vouched total cash receipts recorded for the year in the general ledger for that type of revenue to bank statements noting a difference between the amounts. The firm did not: · Perform any procedures to evaluate the difference identified between total cash receipts for this type of revenue and revenue recorded in the general ledger; (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. With respect to another type of revenue the firm (1) obtained an issuer-produced summary of daily sales reports for the year and compared the total sales to the general ledger and (2) vouched total cash receipts recorded for the year in the general ledger for that type of revenue to bank statements noting a difference between the amounts. The firm did not: · Evaluate the relevance of the cash receipts information that was used in its testing. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The issuer reported revenue from multiple sources. The firm did not evaluate whether persuasive evidence of an arrangement existed and delivery of services had occurred as of the date in which certain revenue transactions selected for testing had been recognized. Further the firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test certain other revenue transactions. (AS 2301.08)

To reduce the extent of its substantive procedures for certain revenue the firm tested and placed reliance on controls. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing various automated controls over this revenue that consisted of the configuration of the information technology (IT) system to automatically perform certain functions based on pre-established parameters and the firm used a “test of one” approach to test these controls. The firm's testing of these automated controls using a sample of only one instance of each processing alternative was not sufficient because the firm did not evaluate the system functionality of these controls beyond inquiry of the issuer's personnel regarding their processing alternatives or perform other procedures that would have provided sufficient appropriate audit evidence that these controls were designed and operating effectively. (AS 2301.18)

The firm used reports prepared by a third party to substantively test certain other revenue but did not perform any procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of these reports. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The issuer entered into sales contracts with third-party customers which outlined the specific terms and conditions with the customers. For certain revenue transactions sales orders were generated (and revenue was recognized) based on the quantities of goods sold to the customers that were manually entered into the issuer's accounting system. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm selected for testing a control over the recognition of this revenue that consisted of the issuer's review of new and amended sales contracts. The firm identified a deficiency in the design effectiveness of the control during its interim testing. To test the remediation of this control deficiency the firm selected and tested a sample of new and amended sales contracts once the issuer remediated the deficiency. The firm did not perform procedures to test or test any controls over the completeness of the population of new and amended sales contracts from which it made its selections for testing. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer entered into sales contracts with third-party customers which outlined the specific terms and conditions with the customers. For certain revenue transactions sales orders were generated (and revenue was recognized) based on the quantities of goods sold to the customers that were manually entered into the issuer's accounting system. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm selected for testing a control over the recognition of this revenue that consisted of the issuer's review of new and amended sales contracts. The firm identified a deficiency in the design effectiveness of the control during its interim testing. To test the remediation of this control deficiency the firm selected and tested a sample of new and amended sales contracts once the issuer remediated the deficiency. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the effectiveness of the issuer's remediation of the control deficiency because approximately 44 percent of the new and amended sales contracts selected to test the remediation were entered into or amended prior to the issuer's remediation of the deficiency. (AS 2201.44)

The firm tested automated controls over certain of the issuer's revenue in a non-production information technology (IT) environment rather than in the production IT environment that the issuer used to record revenue. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test these automated controls because the firm did not perform procedures to determine whether the issuer's non-production IT environment was identical to the issuer's production IT environment until several months after its testing of the controls. (AS 2201.44)

For certain services the issuer offered discounts rebates and other concessions (collectively 'price adjustments') to customers and recognized revenue based on the gross invoiced price less any applicable price adjustments. To test revenue recognized from these services the firm selected a sample of customer invoices and agreed the net invoiced amounts to cash collections. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the accuracy of the gross invoiced prices and applicable price adjustments. (AS 2301.08)

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

The principal auditor instructed the firm to perform specific substantive procedures to address the identified risks of material misstatement related to revenue. The firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures to test revenue because the firm did not perform certain procedures for each transaction selected for testing and did not perform certain other procedures that it was instructed to perform. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer recognized certain other revenue from contracts based on costs incurred. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the completeness of the costs incurred to date and whether the costs incurred were allowable under the contracts. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer recognized revenue from certain contracts that provided for the reimbursement of (1) employee-related costs which the issuer calculated using the time incurred by its employees to perform certain services under these contracts and (2) other expenses incurred by the issuer. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate whether the amounts recorded as revenue were reimbursable under these contracts. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate whether this revenue was appropriately recognized based on the contractual terms and conditions. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer recognized certain revenue from contracts using the percentage-of-completion method. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the estimated costs to complete open contracts. (AS 2501.07)

The issuer recognized certain revenue from contracts using the percentage-of-completion method. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the completeness of the costs incurred to date and whether the costs incurred were allowable under the contracts. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer recorded certain other revenue based on the completion of services provided to its customers. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test whether the performance obligation for these services was satisfied before revenue was recognized. (AS 2301.08)

The firm's substantive procedures to test the occurrence and accuracy of this revenue did not provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because its procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiencies in the engagement team's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37)

The issuer entered into a contract with a customer in which revenue was recognized on a gross or net basis depending on the nature of the sales transactions and terms of the contract. In its testing the firm identified evidence indicating that revenue from certain sales transactions recognized on a net basis may have met the criteria prescribed in International Financial Reporting Standard 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers ('IFRS 15') for recognition on a gross basis. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate (1) this contradictory evidence and the related effect on revenue recognition and (2) whether the issuer's recognition of revenue from these transactions was in conformity with IFRS 15. (AS 2810.03 and .30)

The issuer recognized revenue based on contractual rates and hours incurred for services provided to its customers and the firm selected a sample of these revenue transactions by business unit for testing. The following deficiencies were identified: · For revenue for two business units the firm did not perform any procedures to test the contractual rates and hours incurred. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer recognized revenue based on contractual rates and hours incurred for services provided to its customers and the firm selected a sample of these revenue transactions by business unit for testing. The following deficiencies were identified: · For revenue for one business unit the firm did not perform any procedures to test the contractual rates. (AS 2301.08)

The firm used the assigned revenue amounts from the issuer's financial reporting system in its substantive testing of this disclosure but did not test or sufficiently test the control over the appropriateness of the revenue assigned to the reportable segments. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer recognized revenue from a contract over time using an input method based on labor hours incurred. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the estimated labor hours to complete this contract at year end beyond inquiring of management and for a sample of employees confirming their labor hours budgeted for the contract as of year end. (AS 2501.16)

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

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

At certain other business units the following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform substantive procedures beyond observing the issuer's processing of one revenue transaction to evaluate whether the performance obligations had been satisfied before revenue was recognized. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer recognized certain revenue over time from contracts for which it had an enforceable right to payment for inventory that did not have an alternative use to the issuer. The issuer's IT system for this revenue was configured to recognize revenue upon shipment and the issuer recorded manual adjustments to recognize revenue at period end based on the progress it made to manufacture goods in inventory that had not been shipped. The firm selected for testing 1) an automated control that included the designation of sales orders in the system as “on hold” until the issuer completed a review of each sales order prior to shipment and 2) the control related to the issuer's review of each sales order with the “on hold” designation in the system to ensure it was associated with a valid contract. The following deficiencies were identified: · For the sales order review control the firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the completeness of the population of items from which it selected its samples because it did not perform any procedures over the completeness of the population of sales orders associated with goods in inventory that the issuer had begun to manufacture. (AS 1105.10)

For this business unit the firm's substantive procedures to test revenue consisted of testing samples of transactions and performing substantive analytical procedures. The following deficiencies were identified: · 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 purchase orders or contracts. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer recognized revenue from multiple revenue streams. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform substantive procedures to test certain other revenue beyond (1) examining customer invoices produced by the issuer for a sample of revenue transactions (2) verifying the mathematical accuracy of those invoices and reconciling the total invoiced amounts to the general ledger and (3) obtaining customer contracts for the selected revenue transactions and summarizing certain terms of those contracts. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer recorded multiple types of revenue. For premium revenue the firm's primary substantive procedure consisted of analytical procedures. The following deficiency was identified: · 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'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 issuer recognized revenue from multiple sources. The following deficiency was identified: · To test certain revenue the firm selected transactions from a report the issuer prepared and recalculated the related revenue using the key terms underlying the selected transactions as reflected in the report. The firm did not perform any procedures to test the (1) occurrence of the selected transactions and (2) accuracy of the key terms underlying those transactions that the firm used to recalculate the related revenue. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer recognized revenue from multiple sources. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to test certain other revenue. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform procedures to test certain revenue beyond determining for a sample of revenue transactions that a contract existed between the issuer and the respective clients and agreeing the respective amounts recorded to invoices the issuer generated. (AS 2301.08)

To substantively test revenue the firm selected revenue transactions for testing that exceeded a monetary threshold. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the remaining population of revenue transactions as its testing was limited to comparing prior year revenues to current year amounts. (AS 1105.27; AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not perform procedures to test whether performance obligations were satisfied prior to the recognition of certain other revenue. (AS 2301.08)

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

The issuer recognized revenue from different sources. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate the effect of certain sales terms and conditions on the transaction price. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer recognized revenue from different sources. The following deficiencies were identified: · For certain revenue the firm did not evaluate whether the existence of certain arrangements or terms and conditions affected when performance obligations were satisfied. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer recognized revenue from different sources. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform procedures beyond completing a disclosure checklist to evaluate whether the disclosures in the financial statements met certain requirements of FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer recognized revenue from different sources. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm used certain external information in its substantive procedures to test certain revenue but did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reliability of this information. (AS 1105.04 and .06)