Explorer

The issuer used an external party to assist in selling its products. In addition the issuer's license to sell certain products expired during the year. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify obtain or evaluate the contractual arrangements between the issuer its customers and the external party. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer used an external party to assist in selling its products. In addition the issuer's license to sell certain products expired during the year. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate whether it was appropriate for the issuer to recognize revenue subsequent to the expiration of its related license. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer used an external party to assist in selling its products. In addition the issuer's license to sell certain products expired during the year. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to test whether revenue was recognized at the appropriate amount. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer used an external party to assist in selling its products. In addition the issuer's license to sell certain products expired during the year. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of information produced by the issuer that the firm used in its substantive procedures. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer used an external party to assist in selling its products. In addition the issuer's license to sell certain products expired during the year. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test whether delivery had occurred. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer used an external party to assist in selling its products. In addition the issuer's license to sell certain products expired during the year. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate the reliability of certain external information that it used in its substantive procedures. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The sample size the firm used in a substantive procedure over revenue was too small to achieve the planned objective for the test because it used the methodology for determining the sample size for a test of controls and did not consider factors relevant to determining the sample size for its substantive testing. (AS 2315.16 .23 and .23A)

The issuer's revenue transactions can be initiated by customers through electronic data interchange ('EDI') email or phone call. The issuer used a system to process credit card orders. The firm did not obtain an understanding of (1) how revenue transactions were initiated authorized processed and recorded; (2) how IT systems affected the flow of transactions; and (3) the likely sources of potential misstatements necessary to identify and test controls that would prevent or detect a material misstatement in the financial statements. (AS 2201.30)

The firm did not identify and test the controls over the (1) revenue recognition method; (2) review and approval of the prices; (3) processing of EDI orders; and (4) processing and recording of credit card sales. (AS 2201.39)

The firm selected for testing controls related to management's reviews of monthly and quarterly revenue and accounts receivable balances. 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 issuer had an agreement to market products sold by another party and recognized revenue when the other party sold those products. The firm did not test when the products were sold by the other party. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer had an agreement to market products sold by another party and recognized revenue when the other party sold those products. The firm did not evaluate whether revenue was recognized in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 606 including whether the issuer had satisfied its performance obligations under the terms of the agreement. (AS 2810.30)

The issuer leased equipment that it then subleased to its customers. The issuer issued common stock to the lessor as payment on the lease with an opportunity for the lessor to earn additional shares of the issuer's stock if revenue milestones were met. The issuer recognized revenue from the sublease agreements net of payments to its lessor. The firm did not test the reduction of revenue related to the payments made by the issuer to the lessor of the equipment. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer leased equipment that it then subleased to its customers. The issuer issued common stock to the lessor as payment on the lease with an opportunity for the lessor to earn additional shares of the issuer's stock if revenue milestones were met. The issuer recognized revenue from the sublease agreements net of payments to its lessor. The firm did not test the terms of customer subleases to determine whether the amount and timing of gross billings to customers were appropriate. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer leased equipment that it then subleased to its customers. The issuer issued common stock to the lessor as payment on the lease with an opportunity for the lessor to earn additional shares of the issuer's stock if revenue milestones were met. The issuer recognized revenue from the sublease agreements net of payments to its lessor. The firm did not evaluate the agreements between the issuer and the lessor and the issuer and its customers to determine whether the issuer had an obligation to (1) its customer if the lessor canceled the lease agreement or (2) the lessor if the revenue milestones were met in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 606. (AS 2810.30)

The issuer leased equipment that it then subleased to its customers. The issuer issued common stock to the lessor as payment on the lease with an opportunity for the lessor to earn additional shares of the issuer's stock if revenue milestones were met. The issuer recognized revenue from the sublease agreements net of payments to its lessor. The firm tested a sample of revenue transactions and identified differences. The firm did not (1) evaluate the nature and cause of the differences identified in its sample; (2) project applicable differences to the remaining revenue population; and (3) evaluate if the projected differences were material to the financial statements. (AS 2315.26 and .27; AS 2810.17)

The firm did not evaluate whether the revenue transactions selected for testing were recognized in in accordance with the requirements of FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers because the firm limited its procedures to evaluating the transactions under FASB ASC Topic 605 Revenue Recognition. (AS 2810.30)

The issuer recognized revenue from multiple sources through its subsidiaries. To test revenue from two subsidiaries the firm selected revenue transactions for testing. The following deficiency was identified related to these subsidiaries: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether (1) multiple contracts entered into at or near the same time with the same customer should be accounted for as a single contract and (2) costs associated with certain contracts were appropriately recorded as a reduction of revenue. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer recognized revenue from multiple sources through its subsidiaries. To test revenue from two subsidiaries the firm selected revenue transactions for testing. The following deficiency was identified related to these subsidiaries: · The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate whether all performance obligations were appropriately identified beyond obtaining and reading an issuer-prepared memo related to revenue recognition policies. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not identify and evaluate a departure from GAAP related to the issuer's omission of certain revenue disclosures required by FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The issuer recognized revenue from multiple sources. The firm did not identify and evaluate a departure from GAAP related to (1) the issuer's omission of a revenue-related disclosure required by FASB ASC Topic 280 Segment Reporting and (2) the issuer's inaccurate disclosure regarding the amount of a certain type of revenue. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue included selecting a sample of revenue transactions for testing. The firm's sample was not representative of the population because the firm did not select any transactions for one type of revenue without performing procedures to determine whether all revenue transactions were homogeneous based on their characteristics. (AS 2315.16)

The firm did not evaluate whether the issuer's disclosures were in compliance with the requirements of FASB Topic ASC 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers to disaggregate revenue into categories that depict how the nature amount timing and uncertainty of revenue and cash flows are affected by economic factors. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

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

The firm identified a fraud risk related to revenue. The firm did not perform tests of details over certain other revenue in response to the fraud risk. (AS 2301.13) Unrelated to our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for certain revenue and concluded that a material misstatement existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently corrected this misstatement in a restatement of its financial statements and the firm revised and reissued its report on the financial statements.

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate whether the performance obligations were satisfied before revenue was recognized. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate whether the performance obligation(s) was satisfied before certain revenue was recognized. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate whether the performance obligations were satisfied before certain revenue was recognized. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not perform any procedures to test or test controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain system-generated data that it used to test certain revenue. (AS 1105.10)

The firm's substantive procedures to test two types of revenue consisted of performing analytical procedures and testing a sample of transactions. The following deficiency was identified: · With respect to the substantive analytical procedure for the first type of revenue the firm did not develop expectations that were sufficiently precise to identify potential material misstatements because it did not consider factors that significantly affected the amounts being audited. (AS 2305.17)

The firm's substantive procedures to test two types of revenue consisted of performing analytical procedures and testing a sample of transactions. The following deficiency was identified: · With respect to the substantive analytical procedure for the second type of revenue the firm identified differences in excess of the firm's established threshold but did not evaluate these differences beyond inquiring of management. (AS 2305.21)

The firm's substantive procedures to test two types of revenue consisted of performing analytical procedures and testing a sample of transactions. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm selected a sample of transactions to perform its test of details over the first type of revenue. The firm did not perform procedures to test whether the issuer met the performance obligation prior to the recognition of revenue for certain transactions. (AS 2301.08)

The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue included analytical procedures. The firm developed its expectation for its analytical procedures using recorded amounts of revenue. The firm did not evaluate whether this data was sufficiently relevant and reliable for purposes of achieving its audit objectives. (AS 1105.04 and .06; AS 2305.16)

The issuer recognized several types of revenue. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to test or identify and test any controls over the completeness of a report from which it made its selections to test two types of revenue. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer recognized several types of revenue. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm selected key item transactions to test these two types of revenue. The firm did not perform procedures beyond performing cut-off procedures to test the remaining population of revenue transactions to address the assessed risk of material misstatement. (AS 1105.27; AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer recognized several types of revenue. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate whether the issuer's accounting for one of these types of revenue as the principal rather than as an agent was appropriate because the firm concluded that the issuer had the ability to direct and control the goods or services but it did not perform any procedures to support this conclusion. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer recognized several types of revenue. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the issuer's determination of the transaction price for a sample of transactions for a third type of revenue. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer recognized revenue from product sales through multiple distribution channels and locations. The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue from one of the issuer's distribution channels consisted of (1) vouching a sample of receivables at year-end to subsequent cash collections (2) testing sales cut-off at year-end and (3) testing manual journal entries meeting certain criteria. In addition for locations meeting certain criteria the firm vouched a sample of sales transactions to supporting documentation. The firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures to test revenue because the firm's procedures were limited to testing (1) receivables and sales transactions at or near year end (2) certain revenue recorded through manual journal entries and (3) sales transactions from certain locations selected in a manner that was not representative of the remaining population and as such the results of testing performed could not be projected to the remaining population. (AS 2301.08; AS 2315.24)

The issuer recognized certain revenue based on its estimated progress toward complete satisfaction of the performance obligations. The firm did not perform procedures to test this revenue beyond selecting a sample of revenue transactions and vouching them to contracts and invoices. (AS 2501.07)

The issuer recognized certain revenue based on its estimated progress toward complete satisfaction of the performance obligations. The firm did not perform any procedures to test a disclosure related to this revenue. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer entered into a contract with a customer that contained multiple products and services. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not identify and appropriately address a departure from GAAP related to the issuer's recognition of all revenue under this arrangement up front which is not in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2810.30)

The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue included testing a sample of revenue transactions and performing year-end cut-off procedures. The following deficiencies were identified: - For certain selected transactions the firm did not perform any procedures to test whether performance obligations had been satisfied prior to the recognition of revenue. (AS 2301.08)

The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue included testing a sample of revenue transactions and performing year-end cut-off procedures. The following deficiencies were identified: - For contracts with multiple performance obligations the firm did not perform substantive procedures to test the allocation of the transaction price to each performance obligation beyond comparing the allocation to the payment terms in the contract. (AS 2501.07)

The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue included testing a sample of revenue transactions and performing year-end cut-off procedures. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not perform any procedures to test or in the alternative identify and test any controls over the completeness of the revenue transactions tested in its cut-off procedures. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer entered into a contract with a customer that contained multiple products and services. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not identify and appropriately address a departure from GAAP related to the issuer's omission of a disclosure required by FASB ASC Topic 280 Segment Reporting. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The issuer entered into a contract with a customer that contained multiple products and services. The following deficiencies were identified: - In its testing the firm identified evidence indicating that the issuer may not have had legal title to the products and services it offered under this arrangement. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate this contradictory evidence and the related effect on revenue recognition. (AS 2301.08; AS 2810.03)

The issuer entered into a contract with a customer that contained multiple products and services. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate whether the issuer's conclusion that the products and services sold under this arrangement consisted of a single performance obligation was in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606. (AS 2810.30)

The issuer entered into a contract with a customer that contained multiple products and services. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not perform any substantive procedures beyond inquiry of management to test whether the performance obligation was satisfied prior to the recognition of revenue. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer recognized revenue from multiple business units. In determining the extent to which audit procedures over revenue should be performed at certain business units the firm did not evaluate whether (1) specific risks of material misstatement existed at these business units and (2) the risks of material misstatement the firm identified for the business units subject to more extensive audit procedures also applied to these business units such that in combination they presented a reasonable possibility of material misstatement. (AS 2101.11 and .12)

The firm did not evaluate whether the method used by the issuer to recognize estimated revenue was in conformity with certain requirements of FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2501.10)