Explorer

For certain other revenue the following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control over the processing and recording of this other revenue that consisted of the issuer's review and approval of the revenue distribution. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of a report used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

For certain other revenue the following deficiencies were identified: · The firm used issuer-prepared reports to substantively test this other revenue but did not perform any procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of these reports. (AS 1105.10)

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)

With respect to Revenue other than the contract for one customer the firm did not perform substantive procedures to test the issuer's contracts with customers to evaluate revenue recognition. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer adopted FASB Topic ASC 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers during the year under audit. The firm did not perform procedures beyond reading an issuer-prepared memorandum to evaluate the significant judgments made by the issuer in the application of FASB ASC Topic 606 including the appropriateness of the issuer's determination that consideration did not need to be allocated to certain performance obligations. (AS 2301.08)

In addition the firm did not identify or appropriately address departures from GAAP related to the issuer's omission of disclosures related to (1) the nature of and reason for the change in accounting principle and (2) the transition method used by the issuer as required by FASB ASC Topic 606. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The issuer recognized revenue using certain inputs and assumptions to measure its progress toward the completion of its performance obligations. The firm's approach for substantively testing the estimate of progress toward completion was to review and test management's process. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of this estimate because the firm did not test the accuracy and completeness of the inputs the issuer used to determine the estimate. (AS 1105.10; AS 2501.11)

The issuer recognized revenue using certain inputs and assumptions to measure its progress toward the completion of its performance obligations. The firm's approach for substantively testing the estimate of progress toward completion was to review and test management's process. The firm did not perform procedures to test the assumptions the issuer used to determine the estimate. (AS 2501.09 .10 and .11)

The firm selected certain revenue contracts for testing. The firm did not identify and test whether all relevant performance obligations for revenue recognition had been met for those contracts selected for testing. (AS 2301.08)

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)

The firm sent confirmation requests to a sample of customers and a majority of the confirmation responses received were provided to the firm after having been initially received by the issuer. 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 another type of revenue the firm selected transactions for testing that met certain criteria. The firm did not perform any procedures to test the remaining population that was not included in the selections. (AS 1105.27)

For another type of revenue the firm selected transactions for testing that met certain criteria. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test or in the alternative test controls over the accuracy and completeness of issuer-generated invoices used in the firm's testing of this type of revenue. (AS 1105.10)

The firm did not perform substantive procedures to test revenue beyond comparing it to prior year revenue and comparing certain revenue to the issuer's information system. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate whether the issuer's revenue recognition policies were in accordance with GAAP. (AS 2301.08)

To test certain revenue the firm (1) confirmed certain revenue transactions and received two confirmations back with exceptions (2) selected revenue transactions above a threshold and a sample of transactions below that threshold for detail testing and (3) performed cut-off testing. The firm did not evaluate the nature of exceptions on the two returned confirmations. (AS 2310.33)

To test certain revenue the firm (1) confirmed certain revenue transactions and received two confirmations back with exceptions (2) selected revenue transactions above a threshold and a sample of transactions below that threshold for detail testing and (3) performed cut-off testing. In determining its sample size for transactions below the threshold for detail testing the firm did not take into account the tolerable misstatement for the population and the allowable risk of incorrect acceptance. (AS 2315.16 .19 .23 and .23A)

To test certain revenue the firm (1) confirmed certain revenue transactions and received two confirmations back with exceptions (2) selected revenue transactions above a threshold and a sample of transactions below that threshold for detail testing and (3) performed cut-off testing. The firm did not sufficiently perform substantive procedures to test or in the alternative identify and test controls over the accuracy and completeness of issuer-prepared information the firm used in its substantive procedures because the firm limited its procedures comparing the issuer-prepared information to other issuer-provided information. (AS 1105.10)

For the majority of certain revenue the issuer concluded that there was a single performance obligation. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate whether certain services offered as part of those transactions represented separate performance obligations because the firm concluded they were not separate performance obligations since the issuer had not performed the services during the year and did not evaluate whether the issuer would perform the services as part of completing the transactions. (AS 2301.08; AS 2810.03)

For the majority of certain revenue the issuer concluded that there was a single performance obligation. The firm did not sufficiently test the transaction price because it did not evaluate whether the promised consideration included a variable amount. (AS 2301.08)

For the majority of certain revenue the issuer concluded that there was a single performance obligation. The issuer identified one transaction with multiple performance obligations. The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the allocation of the transaction price to the performance obligations. (AS 2301.08)

For certain other revenue the firm did not obtain an understanding of the specific terms and provisions of the contracts to evaluate whether the issuer appropriately recognized revenue. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform substantive procedures to test revenue beyond comparing certain transactions to issuer-prepared documentation and cash receipts. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not perform substantive procedures to test revenue beyond comparing it to a schedule provided by the issuer. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not identify and evaluate the issuer's omission of disclosures related to the accounting policies for revenue recognition that were required by FASB ASC Topic 235. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm performed procedures to test one revenue transaction. The firm did not perform substantive procedures to test the remaining revenue transactions beyond tracing them to cash receipts and for certain of these transactions to certain fee information provided by customers for which the firm traced the underlying fee rates to customer contracts. Further the firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate certain evidence included in the work papers that indicated the issuer may have recognized revenue on the cash basis of accounting. (AS 2301.08 and .13; AS 2810.03)

The firm did not identify and evaluate the issuer's omission of disclosures related to the amount of revenue recognized in the current year from performance obligations satisfied (or partially satisfied) in previous years that were required by FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm selected key item transactions for testing revenue. The firm did not perform substantive procedures to test those transactions beyond comparing them to invoices. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm selected key item transactions for testing revenue. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the remaining population of revenue transactions. (AS 1105.27; AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether the issuer met the revenue recognition criteria prior to recognizing revenue. (AS 2301.08)

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

The firm did not perform procedures to test revenues beyond obtaining certain issuer-produced reports and reports from external sources. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not identify and evaluate the issuer's inaccurate disclosure of its revenue recognition policy. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm did not identify and evaluate the issuer's omission of disclosures related to disaggregated revenue and significant payment terms required by FASB ASC Topic 606. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm did not perform procedures to test revenue beyond obtaining certain external reports and issuer-produced reports. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform procedures beyond vouching a sample of journal entries to bank statements to evaluate whether the issuer had satisfied its performance obligations before revenue was recognized. Further the firm did not perform any procedures to test the completeness of the sub-ledger it used to make its selection of journal entries. (AS 1105.10; AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform procedures to test revenue beyond obtaining sales reports from external parties and a contract review analysis prepared by the issuer. (AS 2301.08)

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

The issuer recognized several types of revenue. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of a report from an external source that it used to test another type of revenue. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The issuer recognized several types of revenue. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to test another type of revenue. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer recognized several types of revenue. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and evaluate the issuer's omission of disclosures related to revenue required by FASB ASC Topic 606. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The issuer used an information technology (IT) system to process certain revenue transactions under multiple revenue recognition scenarios. To reduce the extent of its substantive procedures for this revenue the firm tested and placed reliance on certain IT general controls (ITGCs). The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a change management control over this IT system that consisted of the testing and approval of system changes prior to their migration into the production environment. The issuer documented system changes in tickets that were entered into a change ticket tracking system. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test or test any controls over the completeness of the population of changes from which it made its selections for testing this control because it limited its procedures to obtaining a list of change tickets from the change ticket tracking system without performing procedures to determine if there were changes that were not captured in that system. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer used an information technology (IT) system to process certain revenue transactions under multiple revenue recognition scenarios. To reduce the extent of its substantive procedures for this revenue the firm tested and placed reliance on certain IT general controls (ITGCs). The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing another change management control over this IT system that consisted of the restriction of access to migrate system changes from the development environment into the production environment. The firm did not identify and evaluate a control design deficiency related to certain IT users that had the ability to develop system changes and migrate system changes from the development environment into the production environment. (AS 2301.19)

The issuer used an information technology (IT) system to process certain revenue transactions under multiple revenue recognition scenarios. To reduce the extent of its substantive procedures for this revenue the firm tested and placed reliance on certain IT general controls (ITGCs). The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test this revenue because it did not test (1) whether this IT system appropriately processed this revenue under each of the revenue recognition scenarios and (2) the inputs used in determining the revenue recognized. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer used an information technology (IT) system to process certain revenue transactions under multiple revenue recognition scenarios. To reduce the extent of its substantive procedures for this revenue the firm tested and placed reliance on certain IT general controls (ITGCs). The firm did not perform procedures to test or sufficiently test controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain system-generated data that it used to substantively test this revenue and certain other revenue. (AS 1105.10)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify certain of the deficiencies below. The firm was instructed by the principal auditor to perform certain procedures to test revenue including (1) analyzing the amount of inventory held by distributors at year-end (2) testing cash disbursements to distributors and (3) agreeing revenue transactions to cash receipts. The firm did not perform procedures (1) and (3) and for (2) limited its testing of cash disbursements to distributors to those made subsequent to year-end. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm's selected a sample of transactions to test certain revenue. The firm did not perform any procedures to test whether certain of these transactions were appropriately recognized as revenue. Further for certain other transactions the firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the related revenue because it limited its procedures to vouching to cash receipts. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not perform any procedures to test or identify and test any controls over the completeness of certain issuer-prepared information used in its substantive testing of revenue. (AS 1105.10)

The firm did not perform procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain issuer-produced system-generated data used in its substantive testing of revenue. (AS 1105.10)

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