Explorer

The firm did not perform any procedures to test the allocation of the transaction price to the separate performance obligations for a certain contract; (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not evaluate for a certain type of revenue whether it was probable that the issuer would collect substantially all of the consideration to which the issuer was entitled in exchange for the satisfaction of its performance obligations. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

For certain revenue the firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate (1) the issuer's identification of its performance obligations and (2) whether such obligations were satisfied before revenue was recognized. (AS 2301.08)

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

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

To test certain revenue the firm selected revenue transactions that met specific criteria to evaluate whether the revenue was appropriately recognized. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the remaining population of revenue transactions from this revenue source. (AS 1105.27; AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue consisted of (1) testing a sample of revenue transactions and (2) performing substantive analytical procedures. The following deficiencies were identified: - For certain selected transactions the firm did not perform sufficient procedures because it limited its testing to comparing transactions to issuer-prepared information. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether (1) the rate at which certain revenue was recognized was appropriate and (2) the performance obligations had been met prior to the recognition of certain of this revenue. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

To test revenue the firm selected for testing certain 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)

To test revenue the firm selected for testing certain items that met specific criteria. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test certain other items affecting revenue. (AS 2301.08)

The firm's approach for testing revenue included selecting a sample of transactions from certain months during the year. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the population of revenue in the remaining months of the year. (AS 2315.24)

The firm's approach for testing revenue included selecting a sample of transactions from certain months during the year. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate the reliability of information obtained from external sources that it used to test the transactions. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The issuer used multiple point-of-sale (POS) applications to initiate and process revenue transactions. The firm selected for testing two controls related to the automated calculation of sales discounts and the review of those discounts by designated individuals with certain access levels. For restaurant sales the following deficiency was identified: • The firm selected a sample of restaurant sales transactions to perform a test of details; however the firm did not perform any procedures to test revenue recognition for certain of the sampled items. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer entered into revenue arrangements primarily to provide services. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures beyond obtaining customer invoices and contracts to test whether the issuer's performance obligations had been satisfied before revenue was recognized. (AS 2301.08)

The firm selected certain revenue transactions for testing. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate whether the issuer met its performance obligations before revenue was recognized because it limited its procedures to obtaining incident response logs and reports prepared by the issuer. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

To test revenue the firm selected a sample of transactions. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate whether the issuer had satisfied its performance obligations prior to recognizing certain revenue because it limited its procedures to obtaining issuer-produced documents and/or cash receipts for a selection of transactions. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm relied on controls in its approach to testing revenue. The firm did not sufficiently test controls in the revenue process because it limited its procedures to a walkthrough. (AS 2301.16)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test whether revenue was recognized in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers because it did not evaluate whether contracts were negotiated as a package with a single commercial objective where the amount of consideration to be paid in one contract depended on the price or performance of the other contract or whether goods and services promised in each contract were a single performance obligation when the contracts were entered into at or near the same time with the same customer. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate and test various controls in the revenue cycle because it did not: · Identify and test controls over the upload of data into certain of the issuer's applications or over the calculation of standalone selling price. (AS 2201.39)

For product revenue the firm did not evaluate the shipping terms to assess whether it was appropriate to recognize revenue upon shipment. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

For service revenue the firm did not evaluate whether (1) performance obligations were appropriately identified (2) the allocation of revenue between performance obligations was appropriate and (3) performance obligations were satisfied. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate and test various controls in the revenue cycle because it did not: · Evaluate the severity of identified control deficiencies to determine whether the deficiencies in combination with other deficiencies constituted a material weakness. (AS 2201.62)

For certain revenue items selected for testing the firm did not evaluate whether the performance obligation was satisfied before revenue was recognized. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer recognized revenue upon delivery of services to customers. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test whether services had been delivered for certain revenue transactions selected for testing. (AS 2301.08)

For the sales transactions selected for testing the firm did not perform procedures to test whether revenue recognition criteria had been satisfied. (AS 2301.08)

For the sales transactions selected for testing the firm did not perform procedures to test whether revenue recognition criteria had been satisfied. (AS 2301.08)

To test revenue the firm selected sales transactions for testing that exceeded a monetary threshold. The firm did not perform procedures beyond performing year-end cut-off procedures to test the remaining population of sales transactions. (AS 1105.27; AS 2301.08)

The issuer recognized certain revenue based on an arrangement with an external party. The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reliability of data the issuer used to record this revenue. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

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

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

The firm did not evaluate the appropriateness of the issuer's revenue recognition policy for certain revenue. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate whether the issuer satisfied its performance obligations prior to the recognition of revenue because it limited its procedures to testing cash receipts. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not perform procedures to test sales discounts. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm also did not perform procedures to test or test any controls over the completeness of certain information it used to test revenue. (AS 1105.10)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test a subset of this revenue because it limited its procedures to tracing certain transactions to cash receipts. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform procedures to test another subset of revenue beyond reviewing a sales listing obtained from an external source. (AS 2301.08)

For one category of revenue the firm did not evaluate whether all of the relevant revenue recognition criteria had been met for the sales transactions it selected for testing. (AS 2301.08)

For certain of the issuer's subsidiaries the firm did not evaluate whether the relevant revenue recognition criteria had been met for the sales transactions selected for testing. (AS 2301.08)

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

The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the terms and conditions of the issuer's arrangements with its customers. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not perform any procedures to test whether the issuer satisfied its performance obligations prior to the recognition of revenue. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

For the sales transactions selected for testing the firm did not perform procedures to test whether all of the relevant revenue recognition criteria had been met. (AS 2301.08)

To test certain revenue the firm selected a sample of items for testing. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm drew its sample from a source that was not necessarily representative of the revenue recorded during the year. (AS 2315.17)

The firm did not perform procedures to test the accuracy of certain data it used to test an adjustment to revenue beyond agreeing the data to the issuer's internal systems. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test certain revenue because it did not evaluate whether (i) the agreement was a modification to an existing contract or whether it was appropriate to account for it as a separate contract and (ii) certain payments received from an external party represented consideration payable to a customer. Further the firm did not sufficiently evaluate whether the timing of revenue recognition was appropriate because it did not evaluate certain information that indicated the issuer (i) may not be entitled to any consideration and (ii) had not satisfied the performance obligation. (AS 2301.08 and .13; AS 2810.03)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test certain revenue because the firm did not evaluate (i) whether the sales contracts included multiple performance obligations and (ii) whether revenue was recognized after the point in time at which control was transferred to the customer. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether the issuer's sales contracts met the criteria for application of the practical expedient relating to the remaining performance obligations disclosure. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm selected a sample of transactions to test certain other revenue. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the transfer of control for these transactions. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not perform any procedures to test the accuracy of certain revenue disclosures in the issuer's financial statements. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer generated revenue through two types of transactions: Method A and Method B. The issuer calculated Method B revenue by multiplying the number of products delivered by the quarterly average price per product for Method A revenue which was provided to the issuer by an unrelated party. The firm did not evaluate (1) the relevance of quarterly average prices for Method A revenue to the actual prices for Method B revenue and (2) the reliability of the quarterly average prices provided by the unrelated party. (AS 1105.04 and .06)