Explorer

The firm did not sufficiently evaluate whether the issuer's method to recognize revenue on a gross basis was appropriate because the firm did not evaluate certain indicators of net basis that existed. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

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

The issuer recognized revenue from multiple business entities. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not test transaction prices used in recording revenue for one business entity. (AS 2301.08 and .11)

The issuer recognized revenue from multiple business entities. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not test or identify and test any controls over the completeness of a system-generated report used in its substantive procedures to test revenue for this business entity. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer recognized revenue from multiple business entities. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to test the occurrence and allocation of certain revenue for another business entity. (AS 2301.08 and .11)

The issuer recognized revenue from multiple business entities. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test certain revenue for the above business entity and a third business entity because its procedures were limited to (1) agreeing revenue to sales invoices and (2) documenting the terms of the agreement with customers for certain transactions. (AS 2301.08 and .11)

The issuer recognized revenue from multiple business entities. The following deficiencies were identified: · The sample sizes the firm used in its substantive procedures to test revenues for each of the three above business entities were 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 tolerable misstatement for the populations the allowable risk of incorrect acceptance and the characteristics of the populations. (AS 2315.16 .19 .23 and .23A)

The issuer recognized revenue from multiple business entities. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test revenue for a fourth business entity because it did not test the adjustment of revenue for the redemption of gift cards. (AS 2301.08 and .11)

The issuer recognized revenue from multiple business entities. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test revenue for a fifth business entity because its procedures were limited to agreeing revenue to issuer-produced sales invoices. (AS 2301.08 and .11)

The firm selected for testing a control over the review of a revenue variance analysis but 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 firm did not perform any procedures to test the disclosure related to revenue allocated to remaining performance obligations. (AS 2301.08 and .11)

The issuer recognized several types of revenue. The following deficiencies were identified: · For one type of revenue the firm selected a sample of transactions for testing. The firm did not perform procedures to test whether revenue was appropriately recognized for the sampled transactions beyond obtaining issuer-produced sales orders. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer recognized several types of revenue. The following deficiencies were identified: · For a second type of revenue the firm did not evaluate the appropriateness of the issuer's identification of performance obligations. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer recognized several types of revenue. The following deficiencies were identified: · For the second type of revenue the firm selected a sample of transactions for testing. The firm did not perform procedures to test whether revenue was appropriately recognized for the sampled transactions beyond obtaining cash receipts. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer recognized several types of revenue. The following deficiencies were identified: · For a third type of revenue the firm did not perform procedures to evaluate whether the issuer had satisfied its performance obligations beyond obtaining cash receipts for certain transactions. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not perform substantive procedures to test an estimate related to revenue beyond recalculating the amount. (AS 2501.07)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. To test certain revenue the firm relied on confirmations from customers. The issuer's sales personnel directly contacted the customers and obtained customer signatures as proof of customer receipt of goods purchased. The issuer provided the firm with the signed confirmations. The firm did not maintain control over the confirmation requests and responses through direct communication between the firm and the intended recipients of the confirmation requests. (AS 2310.28)

For certain revenue the firm did not sufficiently evaluate whether there was a contract with a customer. Specifically the firm did not assess whether it was probable that the issuer would collect substantially all of the consideration to which it would be entitled in exchange for the goods or services that would be transferred to the customer before revenue was recognized including consideration of contradictory evidence. (AS 2301.08 and .13; AS 2810.03)

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 other revenue the firm vouched monthly total cash receipts for certain payment methods for certain months to bank statements and for the remaining months selected three cash receipts per month and vouched them to bank statements. The firm did not: · Perform any procedures to test whether the performance obligations had been satisfied before revenue was recognized; (AS 2301.08 and .13)

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 other revenue the firm vouched monthly total cash receipts for certain payment methods for certain months to bank statements and for the remaining months selected three cash receipts per month and vouched them to bank statements. The firm did not: · Evaluate the relevance of the cash receipts information that was used in its testing; (AS 1105.04 and .06)

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 other revenue the firm vouched monthly total cash receipts for certain payment methods for certain months to bank statements and for the remaining months selected three cash receipts per month and vouched them to bank statements. The firm did not: · Perform any procedures to test contra revenue. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. With respect to another type of revenue the firm (1) obtained an issuer-produced summary of daily sales reports for the year and compared the total sales to the general ledger and (2) vouched total cash receipts recorded for the year in the general ledger for that type of revenue to bank statements noting a difference between the amounts. The firm did not: · Perform any procedures to test whether the performance obligations had been satisfied before revenue was recognized; (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. With respect to another type of revenue the firm (1) obtained an issuer-produced summary of daily sales reports for the year and compared the total sales to the general ledger and (2) vouched total cash receipts recorded for the year in the general ledger for that type of revenue to bank statements noting a difference between the amounts. The firm did not: · Perform any procedures to evaluate the difference identified between total cash receipts for this type of revenue and revenue recorded in the general ledger; (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. With respect to another type of revenue the firm (1) obtained an issuer-produced summary of daily sales reports for the year and compared the total sales to the general ledger and (2) vouched total cash receipts recorded for the year in the general ledger for that type of revenue to bank statements noting a difference between the amounts. The firm did not: · Evaluate the relevance of the cash receipts information that was used in its testing. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The issuer reported revenue from multiple sources. For one source of revenue the firm did not test or in the alternative test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of data used by the issuer to calculate the revenue. (AS 1105.10)

The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the reconciliation of data from the issuer's revenue input system to its billing systems. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy of the data used in the operation of these controls. (AS 2201.39)

The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of (1) the approval of new customers and creation of customer accounts in the billing systems and (2) the review and approval of new contracts and sales orders. The firm did not test or in the alternative test any controls over the completeness of the reports that the firm used in its testing of these controls. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer reported revenue from multiple sources. The firm did not evaluate whether persuasive evidence of an arrangement existed and delivery of services had occurred as of the date in which certain revenue transactions selected for testing had been recognized. Further the firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test certain other revenue transactions. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer accrues a provision for customer rebates. The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of management's review of the rebate accrual and an investigation of certain variances over established thresholds. The firm did not evaluate whether the thresholds that the control owner used were sufficiently precise to detect misstatements that could be material. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The sample size the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test the rebate accrual 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 selected for testing certain controls over revenue that consisted of (1) the reconciliation of billing data from a system-generated report from the issuer's general ledger system to the issuer's billing system and (2) management's review of certain unresolved reconciling items from the reconciliation of data from another system to the issuer's billing system. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the data used in the operation of these controls. (AS 2201.39)

To reduce the extent of its substantive procedures for certain revenue the firm tested and placed reliance on controls. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing various automated controls over this revenue that consisted of the configuration of the information technology (IT) system to automatically perform certain functions based on pre-established parameters and the firm used a “test of one” approach to test these controls. The firm's testing of these automated controls using a sample of only one instance of each processing alternative was not sufficient because the firm did not evaluate the system functionality of these controls beyond inquiry of the issuer's personnel regarding their processing alternatives or perform other procedures that would have provided sufficient appropriate audit evidence that these controls were designed and operating effectively. (AS 2301.18)

To reduce the extent of its substantive procedures for certain revenue the firm tested and placed reliance on controls. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing an IT dependent manual control over this revenue that consisted of management's review of the reconciliation of certain revenue transactions between two systems. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the system-generated information used in the operation of this control. (AS 2301.16)

To reduce the extent of its substantive procedures for certain revenue the firm tested and placed reliance on controls. 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 deficiencies in the firm's control testing described above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The firm used reports prepared by a third party to substantively test certain other revenue but did not perform any procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of these reports. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The issuer entered into sales contracts with third-party customers which outlined the specific terms and conditions with the customers. For certain revenue transactions sales orders were generated (and revenue was recognized) based on the quantities of goods sold to the customers that were manually entered into the issuer's accounting system. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm selected for testing a control over the recognition of this revenue that consisted of the issuer's review of new and amended sales contracts. The firm identified a deficiency in the design effectiveness of the control during its interim testing. To test the remediation of this control deficiency the firm selected and tested a sample of new and amended sales contracts once the issuer remediated the deficiency. The firm did not perform procedures to test or test any controls over the completeness of the population of new and amended sales contracts from which it made its selections for testing. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer entered into sales contracts with third-party customers which outlined the specific terms and conditions with the customers. For certain revenue transactions sales orders were generated (and revenue was recognized) based on the quantities of goods sold to the customers that were manually entered into the issuer's accounting system. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm selected for testing a control over the recognition of this revenue that consisted of the issuer's review of new and amended sales contracts. The firm identified a deficiency in the design effectiveness of the control during its interim testing. To test the remediation of this control deficiency the firm selected and tested a sample of new and amended sales contracts once the issuer remediated the deficiency. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the effectiveness of the issuer's remediation of the control deficiency because approximately 44 percent of the new and amended sales contracts selected to test the remediation were entered into or amended prior to the issuer's remediation of the deficiency. (AS 2201.44)

The issuer entered into sales contracts with third-party customers which outlined the specific terms and conditions with the customers. For certain revenue transactions sales orders were generated (and revenue was recognized) based on the quantities of goods sold to the customers that were manually entered into the issuer's accounting system. The following deficiencies were identified: • The firm identified a process risk point over the recognition of this revenue that did not have an associated control and concluded that a design effectiveness deficiency existed. The firm identified and tested compensating controls that it believed would mitigate the deficiency. The firm did not identify that these compensating controls did not address the risk of material misstatement related to the entry of incorrect quantities of goods sold into the issuer's accounting system. (AS 2201.68)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of management's monthly review of the journal entry recorded to adjust revenue for undelivered shipments. 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 firm tested automated controls over certain of the issuer's revenue in a non-production information technology (IT) environment rather than in the production IT environment that the issuer used to record revenue. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test these automated controls because the firm did not perform procedures to determine whether the issuer's non-production IT environment was identical to the issuer's production IT environment until several months after its testing of the controls. (AS 2201.44)

For certain services the issuer offered discounts rebates and other concessions (collectively 'price adjustments') to customers and recognized revenue based on the gross invoiced price less any applicable price adjustments. To test revenue recognized from these services the firm selected a sample of customer invoices and agreed the net invoiced amounts to cash collections. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the accuracy of the gross invoiced prices and applicable price adjustments. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer recognized certain revenue upon delivery of the sold product to the customer. Pursuant to the customer contracts the quantity of products sold and delivered was measured using measuring equipment at the issuer's locations. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's evaluation of the equipment used to measure inventory quantity on hand and inventory quantity delivered to each customer to determine whether it was appropriately maintained and operating correctly. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to determine whether the equipment was accurately measuring the quantity of products delivered to each customer. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer recognized certain revenue upon delivery of the sold product to the customer. Pursuant to the customer contracts the quantity of products sold and delivered was measured using measuring equipment at the issuer's locations. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm selected for testing another control that consisted of management's review of the reconciliation of the quantity of products sold in the revenue system to the quantity of products delivered in the issuer's inventory management system. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the system-generated reports used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

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)

Deficiency testing the accuracy and completeness of an issuer-prepared schedule used in substantive revenue testing.

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate whether the issuer recognized revenue in conformity with certain aspects of International Financial Reporting Standard 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers because the firm did not consider certain inputs that would have affected the recognition of revenue for certain sales transactions selected for testing. (AS 2810.30)

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

The firm sent positive confirmation requests to the issuer's customers for a sample of certain revenue transactions. For positive confirmations that were not returned the firm did not perform alternative procedures that provided sufficient appropriate audit evidence that the delivery of services had occurred for those selections. (AS 2310.31)

The issuer recognized revenue from multiple revenue streams. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm selected for testing a control over the disclosure of certain revenue that consisted of the issuer's review and approval of its financial statement disclosures. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy of certain data used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer recognized revenue from multiple revenue streams. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm used certain issuer-prepared data to substantively test one of the issuer's revenue disclosures but did not perform any procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy of this data. (AS 1105.10)