Explorer

The firm selected for testing a configurable IT application control over certain revenue that consisted of the issuer's revenue system automatically pulling prices from a validated contract and blocking manual price changes at the order level. The firm did not test the aspect of the control related to the recording of sales revenue to ensure that the price used to record such revenue was based on the contract price within the issuer's revenue system. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm selected for testing two controls that consisted of the issuer's review of invoices and contracts for appropriate revenue recognition. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to assess whether certain revenue generated from these contracts was recorded in the appropriate period. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

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 firm's approach for substantively testing certain revenue consisted primarily of performing a software-assisted analysis which included performing procedures to test the accuracy of information used in this analysis. The software-assisted analysis was designed to test the relationships among revenue accounts receivable and cash that the issuer recorded through journal entries. The firm however did not perform procedures to test the appropriateness of the cash data used in this analysis. (AS 1105.10)

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 selected for testing a control that consisted of the review of a memorandum documenting the issuer's revenue recognition methodology. The issuer prepared this memorandum using questionnaire responses received from issuer personnel regarding key terms of contracts and purchase orders that could affect revenue recognition. The firm did not identify and test any controls to address the accuracy of the information contained in the questionnaires used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

The firm selected for testing certain automated application controls related to revenue. The firm's testing of these controls was not sufficient because the procedures performed were substantive in nature and did not directly test the controls. (AS 2201.42 .44 and .B9)

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

The firm did not perform procedures to test the accuracy and completeness of certain issuer-produced reports beyond testing their mathematical accuracy that the issuer used to identify performance obligations and allocate transaction prices to those obligations and the firm used in its substantive procedures. (AS 1105.10)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of the calculation of gross premiums earned and unearned premiums. The control owner utilized system queries in performing its review. The firm's testing of this control was not sufficient because its procedures were limited to inquiring of the control owner and reviewing query parameters for reasonableness. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed the risk that revenue was recognized from policies with premiums that were deemed uncollectible. (AS 2201.39)

The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue consisted of performing substantive analytical procedures and for certain revenue tests of details. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm used certain data in its substantive analytical procedures but did not test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of these data. (AS 2305.16)

The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue consisted of performing substantive analytical procedures and for certain revenue tests of details. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm's tests of details for certain revenue included recalculating revenue for a sample of revenue transactions. The firm did not perform procedures to test or test controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain issuer-produced information it used to recalculate this revenue. (AS 1105.10)

The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue included performing substantive analytical procedures by comparing revenue to the issuer's forecasted revenue. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test beyond inquiry or in the alternative test controls over the accuracy and completeness of the information used to develop the issuer's forecasted revenue. (AS 2305.16)

The issuer uses applications to process and record revenue transactions. The firm selected for testing controls over user access to these applications. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to verify the appropriateness of user access to certain of these applications. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

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 any substantive procedures to test or in the alternative test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain data it used to test certain revenue. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer uses applications to process and record revenue transactions. The firm selected for testing controls over change management. The firm did not test these controls for certain applications beyond inquiry of management. (AS 2201.42 .44 and .50)

The firm tested information technology ('IT') dependent manual controls that used reports generated by certain of these applications. The firm's approach to test the accuracy and completeness of these reports depended on effective IT general controls. As a result of the above deficiencies the firm's testing of these IT-dependent manual controls was not sufficient. (AS 2201.46)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of certain revenue compared to expectations. In evaluating the design of this control the firm did not assess the effect of a change in how the expectations were developed on the control's ability to effectively prevent or detect a misstatement. (AS 2201.42)

For certain revenue the firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed the risk of whether revenue was recorded based on purchase orders. (AS 2201.39)

The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of information used by the issuer in the operation of certain controls. (AS 2201.39)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test or in the alternative test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of information used in the firm's testing of certain controls. (AS 1105.10)

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

The firm's substantive analytical procedures over revenue were insufficient because: · The firm did not determine whether the expectations it used in these analytical procedures were based on predictable relationships (AS 2305.13 and .14)

The firm's substantive analytical procedures over revenue were insufficient because: · The firm used certain system-generated sales data in its substantive analytical procedures but did not perform any procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the data. (AS 2305.16)

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 issuer recognized revenue in accordance with the terms and conditions of contractual arrangements with customers which were entered into the billing systems and used to create sales invoices and record revenue. The firm did not identify and test any controls to ensure that customers were invoiced and the related revenue was recognized in accordance with the contractual terms and conditions. Further the firm did not identify and test any controls over the initial entry of pricing data into the issuer's billing systems. (AS 2201.39)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of month-to-month revenue variances. The firm did not evaluate the review procedures that the control owners performed including the procedures to identify items for follow up and the procedures to determine whether those items were appropriately resolved. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

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 selected for testing a control that consisted of a review of customer contracts for proper revenue recognition including the identification and evaluation of terms and conditions in such contracts that affect the recognition of certain revenue. The firm did not evaluate the review procedures that the control owner performed including the procedures to identify items for follow up and the procedures to determine whether those items were appropriately resolved. (AS 2201.42 and 44)

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 the deficiency in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures to evaluate whether certain revenue was recognized in conformity with IFRS 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers as it did not evaluate whether: · certain provisions in customer contracts represented distinct performance obligations and if so whether such performance obligations should be recognized at a point in time or over the relevant service period in accordance with IFRS 15; and · the issuer's allocation of transaction price to a series of performance obligations was in conformity with IFRS 15. (AS 2301.08 and .11)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of customer contracts for proper revenue recognition and identified a significant deficiency related to this control. The firm identified and tested a compensating control that it believed would mitigate the deficiency which consisted of another review control over customer contracts. The firm did not evaluate the review procedures that the control owner performed to be able to conclude that the compensating control mitigated the identified significant deficiency. (AS 2201.68)

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

For certain revenue the firm selected for testing an automated control within the general ledger system that was designed to generate invoices and recognize revenue once the shipment was confirmed in the general ledger system. The firm did not identify and test any controls over (1) confirmed shipment data that were manually entered into the general ledger system and (2) the completeness and accuracy of the shipment data transferred to the general ledger from the issuer's shipping tracking systems. (AS 2201.39)

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)

For revenue at a foreign location the firm selected for testing two entity-level controls. The following deficiencies were identified: · One of these controls consisted of the quarterly review of the financial reporting information for the issuer's segment that included this location. The firm did not evaluate the review procedures the control owner performed including the criteria that the control owner used to identify items for follow up and whether those items were appropriately resolved. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

For revenue at a foreign location the firm selected for testing two entity-level controls. The following deficiencies were identified: · The second control consisted of (1) a review of the issuer's consolidated financial statements (2) a review of transactions over a threshold (3) meetings with the controllers for all segments to discuss financial results and (4) a review of revised consolidated financial statements as a result of adjustments identified as part of the review. The firm did not evaluate whether the criteria used by the control owner to identify items for follow up were sufficiently precise to detect misstatements in the revenue for this location that could be material to the consolidated financial statements. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer recognized certain of its revenue from contracts using the percentage-of-completion method. While the firm performed certain procedures that provided some evidence about historical margins on contracts these procedures provided little to no evidence regarding the estimated costs to complete the specific contracts open at year end. (AS 2501.07)

For two of the issuer's operating units the issuer used the percentage-of-completion method to recognize certain revenue and recognized other revenue upon delivery of its products to its customers or when installation services were rendered. The firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed the risk of improper recognition of this revenue. (AS 2201.39)

For a third type of revenue consisting of three categories the following deficiencies were identified: · For two categories of this revenue the firm selected for testing two controls that consisted of the (1) approval of standard billing rates and (2) review of standard billing rates after they are input into the system. For these two controls and two other controls the firm selected for testing over this type of revenue the firm did not test or in the alternative test any controls that addressed the completeness of certain reports it used to make its selections when testing these controls. (AS 1105.10)

For a third type of revenue consisting of three categories the following deficiencies were identified: · For one of these two categories of this revenue the issuer used external parties to provide the service for the issuer's customer. The firm selected for testing a control that included the issuer obtaining delivery reports from the external parties as evidence that the performance obligation was met. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain of these reports. (AS 2201.39) Unrelated to our review the issuer reevaluated its controls over revenue and concluded that a material weakness existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently revised its report on ICFR to reflect this material weakness and the other material weaknesses discussed herein and the firm modified its opinion on the effectiveness of the issuer's ICFR to express an adverse opinion and reissued its report.

For a third type of revenue consisting of three categories the following deficiencies were identified: · For the third category of this revenue the firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's monthly review of pricing. The firm did not evaluate the review procedures that the control owner performed including the procedures to identify items for follow up and the procedures to determine whether those items were appropriately resolved. (AS 2201.42 and .44) Unrelated to our review the issuer reevaluated its controls over revenue and concluded that a material weakness existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently revised its report on ICFR to reflect this material weakness and the other material weaknesses discussed herein and the firm modified its opinion on the effectiveness of the issuer's ICFR to express an adverse opinion and reissued its report.

For a third type of revenue consisting of three categories the following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform substantive procedures to test or (as a result of the control testing and the ITGC deficiencies discussed above) sufficiently test controls over the completeness of system-generated reports that the firm used in its substantive testing of this type of revenue. (AS 1105.10)

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 the deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of new or amended customer contracts for terms and conditions that may affect revenue recognition. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to identify and evaluate all relevant terms and conditions. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm did not perform substantive procedures to evaluate contract modifications variable consideration and equity-based incentives included in certain customer contracts when evaluating whether the issuer recognized revenue in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2810.30)

The issuer recognized revenue over time for custom products. The firm selected for testing a control that included the issuer's review of a listing of custom products for appropriate revenue recognition. The firm did not evaluate the specific procedures that the control owners performed to determine whether (1) these products had an alternative use to the issuer and (2) the issuer had an enforceable right to payment for performance completed to date for these products. (AS 2201.42 and .44)