Explorer

The issuer recognized revenue from different sources. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate whether certain arrangements in its contracts with customers represented performance obligations. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

To test certain revenue the firm selected for testing items that met specific criteria. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the remaining portion of items that did not meet the specific criteria. (AS 1105.27; AS 2301.08)

The firm selected revenue transactions for testing but did not perform procedures to test whether all of the related performance obligations were satisfied when the issuer recognized revenue. (AS 2301.08)

For certain revenue transactions selected for testing the firm did not perform any procedures to test whether delivery had occurred when the issuer recognized revenue. (AS 2301.08)

The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue included testing a selection of revenue transactions and performing year-end cut-off procedures. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate whether the issuer recognized revenue in accordance with FASB ASC 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers (FASB ASC 606) because it did not perform procedures to evaluate whether (1) customers agreed to the price and quantity for certain revenue transactions selected for testing and (2) a customer contract met the five criteria described in FASB ASC 606 to qualify as such. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue included testing a selection of revenue transactions and performing year-end cut-off procedures. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test revenue cut-off because the firm did not consider contrary evidence related to certain revenue transactions selected for testing which indicated that the revenue may not have been recognized in the correct period. (AS 2301.08 and .13; AS 2810.03)

The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue included testing a selection of revenue transactions and performing year-end cut-off procedures. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test product returns. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

In its testing of revenue the firm did not obtain evidence that revenue recognition criteria had been met. (AS 2301.08)

To test revenue the firm selected a sample of cash receipts from a journal of cash receipts. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm drew its sample from the population of cash receipts that were not necessarily representative of revenue recorded during the year. (AS 2315.17)

To test revenue the firm selected a sample of cash receipts from a journal of cash receipts. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the completeness of the journal of cash receipts. (AS 1105.10)

To test revenue the firm selected a sample of cash receipts from a journal of cash receipts. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures to test whether revenue was recognized in the appropriate period because it limited its testing to revenue transactions before the end of the year. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures to test whether revenue was recognized in the appropriate period because it limited its testing to revenue transactions before the end of the year. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

In addition the firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of total estimated contract costs included in the Schedule. (AS 2501.07)

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

The firm selected a sample of revenue transactions for testing. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test estimates used to recognize revenue and related accounts for certain of these transactions. (AS 2501.07)

The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the terms and conditions of an agreement for certain revenue. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not perform any procedures to test the appropriateness of the amount of revenue recognized. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

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

The firm's approach for substantively testing certain other 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 appropriateness of the data underlying the analysis. The firm included data from certain non-revenue related accounts including expense liability and non-cash general ledger accounts in the analysis. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate whether the data used in the analysis was appropriate because it did not evaluate the implications of including certain data from these non-revenue related accounts in the analysis on the sufficiency and appropriateness of the underlying data. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer recognized revenue from multiple revenue sources. The following deficiencies were identified with respect to the firm's ICFR audit: • The firm selected for testing various other controls but did not perform any procedures to test or test any controls over the completeness of the populations from which it made its selections for testing. (AS 1105.10) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its controls over revenue including IT controls and concluded that additional material weaknesses existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently reflected these additional material weaknesses in a revision to its report on ICFR and the firm revised and reissued its report on ICFR to include these additional material weaknesses.

The firm did not perform procedures to test whether all criteria were met to recognize revenue. (AS 2301.08)

The firm selected for testing a control over sales invoices. The firm did not perform procedures to test or identify and test controls over the completeness of the issuer-produced sales invoice listing used in its testing of the control. (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 recognized over time the firm did not evaluate whether there were significant judgments used by the issuer in determining the timing of satisfaction of performance obligations and whether all applicable required disclosures were made. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

During the year the issuer recorded revenue net of sales discounts. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test sales discounts including the related disclosures. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not perform any procedures to test the relevance and reliability of certain data obtained from an external vendor used in its substantive testing of revenue. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The issuer entered into contracts with certain customers that required revenue to be recognized over time based on costs incurred to date relative to total estimated costs to complete these contracts. To substantively test revenue the firm selected a sample of invoices and performed procedures. The following deficiencies were identified: - With respect to invoices related to contracts for which all revenue was recognized by year end the firm did not perform procedures to test if the issuer's performance obligations were satisfied before revenue was recognized beyond obtaining issuer-prepared documents. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer entered into contracts with certain customers that required revenue to be recognized over time based on costs incurred to date relative to total estimated costs to complete these contracts. To substantively test revenue the firm selected a sample of invoices and performed procedures. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the estimated costs to complete for contracts open at year end because the firm limited its procedures to comparing total actual costs for one contract that was completed subsequent to year end to estimated costs at year end. (AS 2501.07)

The issuer entered into contracts with certain customers that required revenue to be recognized over time based on costs incurred to date relative to total estimated costs to complete these contracts. To substantively test revenue the firm selected a sample of invoices and performed procedures. The following deficiencies were identified: - With respect to testing revenue recognition the firm drew its sample from the population of the issuer's invoices that were not necessarily representative of the revenue recorded during the year. (AS 2315.17)

The firm selected a sample of transactions to test revenue. The firm did not perform procedures other than reviewing certain information on selected invoices to test whether the delivery of services had occurred prior to the issuer's recognition of revenue for certain sampled transactions. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm selected a sample of transactions to test revenue. The firm selected its sample of transactions from three of the four types of revenue. The firm did not perform any procedures to test the fourth type of revenue. (AS 2315.24)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed this area but did not identify the deficiencies below. The issuer's customer determined the amount of consideration for the performance obligations at the time the issuer satisfied its obligations. The firm did not perform procedures to assess whether (1) the issuer's determination of transaction price used to recognize revenue was appropriate and (2) the issuer satisfied its performance obligations prior to the recognition of revenue beyond reading the issuer's revenue recognition memo and confirming with the issuer's customer the payments made to the issuer. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed this area but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue included substantive analytical procedures. The firm used external data and data derived from the recorded amounts of revenue to develop its expectation. The firm did not evaluate whether the data derived from recorded amounts of revenue was sufficiently relevant and reliable for the purpose of achieving its audit objective. (AS 1105.04 and .06; AS 2305.16)

The firm's testing of revenue was not sufficient as the firm did not test whether the applicable revenue recognition criteria had been met. In addition the firm did not evaluate whether the issuer's revenue recognition was in compliance with all applicable GAAP. (AS 2301.08; AS 2810.30)

The firm performed certain substantive procedures to test revenue at an interim date. The firm did not perform any procedures to extend its audit conclusions from the interim date to year end. (AS 2301.45)

To test certain revenue the firm selected transactions from certain months during the year. The firm did not perform procedures beyond performing year-end cut-off procedures to test the population of sales transactions from the remaining months. (AS 1105.27; AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm selected a sample of transactions to test certain revenue. For certain of the sampled transactions the firm did not perform procedures to evaluate whether (1) the issuer met its performance obligations before revenue was recognized and (2) the transaction prices used to recognize revenue were appropriate. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm used certain information obtained from the issuer and from outside sources in its substantive testing of revenue but did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether this information was reliable accurate and complete. (AS 1105.04 .06 and .10)

The issuer recognized revenue from a contract with a new customer. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate whether collectability of substantially all of the consideration was probable at contract inception because its procedures were limited to inquiring of management and reading an issuer-prepared memorandum. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer recognized certain revenue based on electronic activity that was tracked using an internally developed information-technology (IT) system. In its substantive testing of this revenue the firm used activity information obtained from external parties to test the electronic activity in this system but did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reliability of this activity information. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The issuer recognized revenue from certain other arrangements based on information provided by external parties. The firm obtained this information from the issuer and used it in its substantive testing of this revenue. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected the issuer's largest revenue transactions for testing but did not perform any substantive procedures to test the remaining portion of this revenue. (AS 1105.27)

The issuer recorded two types of revenue for one of its subsidiaries net of customer discounts rebates and other deductions. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test these sales deductions beyond comparing the total amount recorded by the issuer to an amount the firm calculated by applying the issuer's historical sales deduction rates to the gross sales for each revenue type. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer recognized certain revenue from contracts over time using an input method based on costs incurred. 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 at year end beyond (1) comparing in the aggregate estimated total costs for open contracts as of the prior year end to the revised estimated total costs for those contracts as of the current year end and (2) obtaining for two open contracts a summary of actual costs incurred during a period of time subsequent to year end and inquiring of management. (AS 2501.07)

The firm relied on an outside source to provide reasonable assurance that the transactions processed by the third-party service provider were accurate. The firm however did not perform any procedures to determine whether it was appropriate to place such reliance on the outside source. (AS 1105.04)

For two types of revenue the firm did not evaluate whether the issuer was acting as a principal or as an agent. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

For one type of revenue the firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test whether the performance obligations had been satisfied before revenue was recognized. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer recorded certain revenue based on information provided by its customers. In the firm's substantive testing of this revenue the firm used this information but did not evaluate its reliability. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

For revenue at three business units one of which was affected by the audit deficiencies discussed above the following additional deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not test whether revenue was recognized according to the contractual pricing. (AS 2301.08)

For revenue at three business units one of which was affected by the audit deficiencies discussed above the following additional deficiencies were identified: · For two of these business units the firm's procedures to test this revenue consisted of testing a sample of transactions from certain periods. The firm did not perform any procedures to test the remaining population of this revenue. (AS 2315.24)

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 firm selected a sample of these arrangements for testing. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test whether the allocation of the transaction prices was based on standalone selling prices. (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 firm selected a sample of these arrangements for testing. The following deficiencies were identified: · For certain of the arrangements selected for testing the firm did not perform any procedures to test whether certain performance obligations had been satisfied before revenue was recognized. (AS 2301.08 and .13)