Explorer

The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue included testing a sample of transactions. The sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported as the firm did not identify and test any controls over revenue. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

For certain other revenue the following deficiency was identified: · The firm's substantive procedures to test this revenue included testing a sample of transactions. The sample size the firm used was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported as the firm did not identify and test any controls over the revenue. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

For certain other revenue the following deficiency was identified: · The firm's substantive procedures to test this revenue included testing a sample of transactions. The firm did not take into account appropriate factors in determining its sample size including its established tolerable misstatement for the population the allowable risk of incorrect acceptance and the characteristics of the population. (AS 2315.16 .23 and .23A)

For revenue that was generally earned upon receipt of the products by customers the firm selected a sample of revenue transactions from sales commission listings obtained from the issuer and performed certain substantive procedures to test revenue. The following deficiencies were identified: - The sample size the firm used was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported because the firm did not identify and test any controls over revenue. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

For revenue that was generally earned upon receipt of the products by customers the firm selected a sample of revenue transactions from sales commission listings obtained from the issuer and performed certain substantive procedures to test revenue. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not take into account appropriate factors in determining its sample size including its established tolerable misstatement for the population the allowable risk of incorrect acceptance and the characteristics of the population. (AS 2315.16 .19 .23 and .23A)

The sample size the firm used in one of its substantive procedures to test revenue was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because this procedure was designed based on a level of reliance on evidence from other substantive procedures that was not supported due to the deficiency in the firm's substantive analytical procedure discussed above. (AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The firm selected transactions to test revenue using a sampling approach that was based on obtaining a certain level of audit evidence from its other substantive procedures. The sample size the firm used was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence over revenue because the firm's other procedures did not provide the level of substantive evidence needed to support its sampling approach. (AS 2315.16 .17 .23 and .23A)

For one type of revenue the firm used a sampling tool to determine the sample size for testing but only tested a subset of the sample. (AS 2315.25)

Deficiencies in the firm's role testing revenue controls and performing substantive revenue procedures, including incomplete control testing and undersized samples.

The sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test revenue were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The sample size the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test revenue was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The sample size the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test revenue was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test revenue and related accounts were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based upon a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue consisted of performing a test of details for the first 11 months of the issuer's fiscal year and a substantive analytical procedure for the remaining month. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm limited its test of details to a smaller number of selections than the sample size it calculated. (AS 2301.08)

The sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test this revenue at three of these business units were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

With respect to user access: · The firm selected for testing a control over the approval of new or modified user access for each of these IT systems. The firm did not test the operating effectiveness of (1) this control for one of these systems and (2) the aspect of this control related to the modification of access for existing users for certain other of these systems. Further in its testing of the operating effectiveness of this control for certain IT systems the firm tested fewer items than the sample size it calculated. (AS 2201.44)

The sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test this revenue were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiency in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The firm's substantive procedures to test certain of this revenue consisted of (1) testing a sample of revenue transactions (2) testing a sample of accounts receivable and (3) performing analytical procedures. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm determined its sample size for testing these revenue transactions based in part on the assurance it had obtained from its testing of a sample of accounts receivable at year end. This year-end accounts receivable testing did not provide the planned level of substantive evidence to address the risks of material misstatement related to this revenue because this procedure was primarily focused on the occurrence of revenue at a point in time. As a result the sample that the firm used to test this revenue was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence to address the risks of material misstatement related to this revenue throughout the year. (AS 2301.42; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The issuer offered various forms of sales incentives to customers that were recorded as deductions from revenue. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm's sample for testing certain other of these sales incentives was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because in determining the sample size the firm did not take into account tolerable misstatement and the allowable risk of incorrect acceptance. (AS 2315.16 .23 and .23A)

The issuer recognized certain revenue over time based on estimates of the goods and services it would provide to customers and the payments it would receive for those goods and services. The following deficiencies were identified: · The sample size the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test this revenue was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiency in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test this revenue were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiency in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test revenue were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because (1) these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above and/or (2) in determining the sample size the firm did not take into account the allowable risk of incorrect acceptance. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.16 .19 .23 and .23A)

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 sample size the firm used in its substantive procedures to test certain of this revenue was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiency in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

For a second business unit the following deficiencies were identified: · The sample size the firm used in its substantive procedures to test this revenue was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiency in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The firm's substantive procedures to test one type of revenue at one business unit included selecting a sample of transactions for testing. The firm's sample was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because in determining the sample size the firm did not take into account the allowable risk of incorrect acceptance. (AS 2315.16 .23 and .23A)

As a result of the firm's control testing deficiencies the firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures over revenue as follows: · The sample sizes the firm used in its substantive procedures to test revenue were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

As a result of the firm's control testing deficiencies the firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures over this revenue as follows: · The sample sizes that the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test this revenue were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The firm identified a significant deficiency related to an IT system that the issuer used to record revenue. The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue at one business unit included selecting samples of transactions for testing. The sample sizes the firm used were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported as it did not take into account the potential effect of the significant deficiency on the controls it relied upon. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The sample size the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test certain revenue was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because the firm did not use the appropriate (1) tolerable misstatement for the population and (2) risk assessment in its sampling tool. (AS 2315.16 .23 and .23A)

The sample size the firm used in its substantive procedures to test certain revenue was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because the procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The sample size the firm used in its substantive procedures to test revenue was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because the procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The sample size the firm used in its substantive procedures to test service revenue was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The sample size the firm used in its substantive procedures to test product revenue was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed the revenue area but did not identify the deficiency below. The sample size the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test this revenue was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The firm relied on controls it selected for testing in its approach to testing revenue at two of the issuer's business units. The following deficiencies were identified: · The sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test this revenue were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

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. To test site rental revenue the firm selected a sample from a system-generated arrival report for a dual-purpose test of controls and substantive procedures. The sample size used in its substantive procedures was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because the firm used a sample size for control testing which did not take into account tolerable misstatement for the population the allowable risk of incorrect acceptance and the characteristics of the population. (AS 2315.16 .19 .23 .23A and .44)

The firm designed certain of its substantive procedures to test revenue as a dual-purpose test. The following deficiencies were identified: · The sample size the firm used was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because in determining the sample size the firm did not (1) take into account tolerable misstatement and the allowable risk of incorrect acceptance and (2) use the larger of the samples that would otherwise have been designed for the two separate purposes. (AS 2315.16 .19 .23 .23A and .44)

With respect to Revenue the firm designed certain of its substantive procedures as a dual-purpose test. The firm performed its substantive procedures using the sample size it determined for its control testing. This sample size was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because the firm did not use the larger of the samples that would otherwise have been designed for the two separate purposes. (AS 2315.44)

The firm's sample for testing certain revenue was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because in determining its sample size the firm inappropriately used a risk of material misstatement that was lower than its assessed risk of material misstatement for this revenue. (AS 2315.23 and .23A)

The firm's substantive procedures to test certain revenue included selecting a sample of transactions for testing. The firm's sample was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because in determining the sample size the firm did not take into account the allowable risk of incorrect acceptance. (AS 2315.16 .23 and .23A)

The sample size the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test revenue was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiency in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The sample size the firm used in its substantive procedures to test revenue was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The sample size the firm used in its substantive procedures to test revenue was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The firm's substantive procedures to test certain revenue included testing a sample of transactions. The sample size the firm used to perform these substantive procedures was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because the firm did not take into account the relevant factors in determining its sample size including the relationship of the samples to the relevant audit objective and the characteristics of the population. (AS 2315.16 .19 .23 and .23A)

In addition the sample sizes the firm used were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

For certain revenue the issuer's system initiated revenue recognition upon the issuer's review and input of shipment information into the system. The following deficiencies were identified: · The sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test this revenue were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

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's sample size for testing revenue was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because in determining the sample size the firm did not take into account tolerable misstatement the allowable risk of incorrect acceptance and the characteristics of the population. (AS 2315.16 .23 and .23A)

The sample size that the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test this revenue was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The sample size the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test this revenue was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiency in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

As a result of the firm's control testing deficiencies the firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures over revenue as follows: · The sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test revenue were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)