Explorer

The firm selected for testing a control over the review of the entry to record certain revenue and the calculation of that revenue. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to evaluate the reasonableness of certain assumptions used in the calculation. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm selected for testing a control over the review of certain current-period revenue compared to the prior period. 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)

In addition the firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of data used in the operation of the above two controls and another control over the review of the reconciliation of revenue. (AS 2201.39)

To test certain revenue the firm selected for testing items that met specific criteria. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the remaining portion of items that did not meet the specific criteria. (AS 1105.27; AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the terms and conditions of a customer arrangement to determine whether the issuer appropriately recognized revenue under the arrangement in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2810.30)

The firm selected revenue transactions for testing but did not perform procedures to test whether all of the related performance obligations were satisfied when the issuer recognized revenue. (AS 2301.08)

The firm selected a sample of revenue transactions for testing by computing the number of invoices issued during the year by subtracting the first invoice number from the final invoice number for the year from the sales sub-ledger and dividing by the required sample size. The firm then selected invoices based on a defined sampling interval. The firm did not (1) determine whether the invoices selected for testing were recorded within the sales sub-ledger and (2) obtain and test the reconciliation of the sales sub-ledger to the issuer's general ledger. (AS 1105.10)

For certain revenue transactions selected for testing the firm did not perform any procedures to test whether delivery had occurred when the issuer recognized revenue. (AS 2301.08)

To test revenue the firm selected revenue transactions that exceeded a monetary threshold and judgmentally selected a sample of revenue transactions from the remaining population. In determining the sample size for the remaining population the firm did not take into account the relevant factors including tolerable misstatement for the population the allowable risk of incorrect acceptance and the characteristics of the population. As a result the sample size the firm used in its test of details was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence. (AS 2315.16 .23 and .23A)

The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue included testing a selection of revenue transactions and performing year-end cut-off procedures. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate whether the issuer recognized revenue in accordance with FASB ASC 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers (FASB ASC 606) because it did not perform procedures to evaluate whether (1) customers agreed to the price and quantity for certain revenue transactions selected for testing and (2) a customer contract met the five criteria described in FASB ASC 606 to qualify as such. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue included testing a selection of revenue transactions and performing year-end cut-off procedures. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test revenue cut-off because the firm did not consider contrary evidence related to certain revenue transactions selected for testing which indicated that the revenue may not have been recognized in the correct period. (AS 2301.08 and .13; AS 2810.03)

The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue included testing a selection of revenue transactions and performing year-end cut-off procedures. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test product returns. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

In its testing of revenue the firm did not obtain evidence that revenue recognition criteria had been met. (AS 2301.08)

To test revenue the firm selected a sample of cash receipts from a journal of cash receipts. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm drew its sample from the population of cash receipts that were not necessarily representative of revenue recorded during the year. (AS 2315.17)

To test revenue the firm selected a sample of cash receipts from a journal of cash receipts. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the completeness of the journal of cash receipts. (AS 1105.10)

To test revenue the firm selected a sample of cash receipts from a journal of cash receipts. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures to test whether revenue was recognized in the appropriate period because it limited its testing to revenue transactions before the end of the year. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

To test revenue the firm selected a sample of cash receipts from a journal of cash receipts. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate whether the issuer recognized revenue in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate whether the issuer recognized revenue in conformity with the relevant steps required under FASB ASC Topic 606. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures to test whether revenue was recognized in the appropriate period because it limited its testing to revenue transactions before the end of the year. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer recognized revenue based on the relationship between actual costs incurred and total estimated contract costs which were accumulated within an issuer-prepared schedule (the 'Schedule'). The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test or in the alternative test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the actual costs incurred included in the Schedule because its procedures were limited to comparing the results of its testing of inventory and payroll to the Schedule. (AS 1105.10)

In addition the firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of total estimated contract costs included in the Schedule. (AS 2501.07)

The firm selected for testing a sample of revenue transactions. In its evaluation of the issuer's revenue recognition the firm did not evaluate whether the identification of performance obligations and the allocation of the transaction price to the performance obligations were appropriate given the existence of contradictory evidence. (AS 2301.08; AS 2810.03)

The firm used data from one of the issuer's systems to test certain revenue but did not test or in the alternative identify and test controls over the accuracy and completeness of this data. (AS 1105.10)

The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reliability of the information it obtained from external sources that it used to test certain revenue. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The firm selected a sample of revenue transactions for testing. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test estimates used to recognize revenue and related accounts for certain of these transactions. (AS 2501.07)

The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the terms and conditions of an agreement for certain revenue. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not perform any procedures to test the appropriateness of the amount of revenue recognized. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

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

For certain other revenue the following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate whether the issuer's recognition of this revenue was in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2301.08)

For certain other revenue the following deficiency was 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 in determining its sample the firm did not take into account the relevant factors in determining its sample size including tolerable misstatement the allowable risk of incorrect acceptance and the characteristics of the population. (AS 2315.16 .19 .23 and .23A)

For certain other revenue the following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not identify and evaluate a GAAP departure related to the issuer's omission of disclosures related to significant payment terms for its customer contracts as required by FASB ASC Topic 606. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The issuer recognized revenue from multiple revenue sources. The following deficiencies were identified with respect to the firm's ICFR audit: • The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of a sample of customer invoices to verify the pricing information reflected in the selected invoices. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the completeness of the population the issuer used to select invoices for review in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its controls over revenue including IT controls and concluded that additional material weaknesses existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently reflected these additional material weaknesses in a revision to its report on ICFR and the firm revised and reissued its report on ICFR to include these additional material weaknesses.

The firm's approach for substantively testing certain revenue included performing a software-assisted analysis to test the relationships among revenue accounts receivable deferred revenue and cash receipts. The reliability of the audit evidence obtained from this analysis was dependent upon the firm's testing of cash receipts data underlying the analysis. The firm also performed tests of details and substantive analytical procedures over the revenue using data from system-generated reports provided by the issuer. The following deficiency was identified: • With respect to the tests of details and substantive analytical procedures the firm did not perform any procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the data or system-generated reports it used to perform the procedures. (AS 1105.10; AS 2305.16)

The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate whether certain revenue was recognized in conformity with IFRS. (AS 2301.08)

The firm's approach for substantively testing certain other revenue consisted primarily of performing a software-assisted analysis to test the relationships among revenue accounts receivable and cash receipts. The reliability of the audit evidence obtained from this analysis was dependent upon the appropriateness of the data underlying the analysis. The firm included data from certain non-revenue related accounts including expense liability and non-cash general ledger accounts in the analysis. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate whether the data used in the analysis was appropriate because it did not evaluate the implications of including certain data from these non-revenue related accounts in the analysis on the sufficiency and appropriateness of the underlying data. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer recognized revenue from multiple revenue sources. The following deficiencies were identified with respect to the firm's ICFR audit: • The firm did not identify and test any controls over certain revenue. (AS 2201.39) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its controls over revenue including IT controls and concluded that additional material weaknesses existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently reflected these additional material weaknesses in a revision to its report on ICFR and the firm revised and reissued its report on ICFR to include these additional material weaknesses.

The issuer recognized revenue from multiple revenue sources. The following deficiencies were identified with respect to the firm's ICFR audit: • The firm selected for testing two other controls that consisted of the issuer's review of a sample of customer invoices to verify the pricing and other information reflected in the selected invoices. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the completeness of the population the issuer used to select invoices for review in the operation of these controls. (AS 2201.39) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its controls over revenue including IT controls and concluded that additional material weaknesses existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently reflected these additional material weaknesses in a revision to its report on ICFR and the firm revised and reissued its report on ICFR to include these additional material weaknesses.

The issuer recognized revenue from multiple revenue sources. The following deficiencies were identified with respect to the firm's ICFR audit: • The firm selected for testing various controls that consisted of the issuer's review and/or reconciliation of certain system-generated data and reports used to recognize revenue and the issuer's follow-up on missing or duplicate data files. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the system-generated information used in the operation of these controls. (AS 2201.39) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its controls over revenue including IT controls and concluded that additional material weaknesses existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently reflected these additional material weaknesses in a revision to its report on ICFR and the firm revised and reissued its report on ICFR to include these additional material weaknesses.

The issuer recognized revenue from multiple revenue sources. The following deficiencies were identified with respect to the firm's ICFR audit: • The firm selected for testing various automated controls that consisted of the configuration of the information technology (IT) system to automatically perform certain functions based on pre-established parameters. The firm's testing of these automated controls was not sufficient because the firm did not evaluate the program logic of these controls beyond obtaining certain documentation from the vendor or perform other procedures that would have provided sufficient appropriate audit evidence that these controls were designed and operating effectively. (AS 2201.42 and .44) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its controls over revenue including IT controls and concluded that additional material weaknesses existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently reflected these additional material weaknesses in a revision to its report on ICFR and the firm revised and reissued its report on ICFR to include these additional material weaknesses.

The issuer recognized revenue from multiple revenue sources. The following deficiencies were identified with respect to the firm's ICFR audit: • The firm did not identify and test controls that addressed certain risks of material misstatement related to certain revenue. (AS 2201.39) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its controls over revenue including IT controls and concluded that additional material weaknesses existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently reflected these additional material weaknesses in a revision to its report on ICFR and the firm revised and reissued its report on ICFR to include these additional material weaknesses.

The issuer recognized revenue from multiple revenue sources. The following deficiencies were identified with respect to the firm's ICFR audit: • The firm did not identify and test any controls over the issuer's evaluation of certain customer contract terms to ensure that the corresponding revenue was recognized in conformity with IFRS. (AS 2201.39) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its controls over revenue including IT controls and concluded that additional material weaknesses existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently reflected these additional material weaknesses in a revision to its report on ICFR and the firm revised and reissued its report on ICFR to include these additional material weaknesses.

The issuer recognized revenue from multiple revenue sources. The following deficiencies were identified with respect to the firm's ICFR audit: • The firm selected for testing various other controls but did not perform any procedures to test or test any controls over the completeness of the populations from which it made its selections for testing. (AS 1105.10) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its controls over revenue including IT controls and concluded that additional material weaknesses existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently reflected these additional material weaknesses in a revision to its report on ICFR and the firm revised and reissued its report on ICFR to include these additional material weaknesses.

The firm's approach for substantively testing certain revenue included performing a software-assisted analysis to test the relationships among revenue accounts receivable deferred revenue and cash receipts. The reliability of the audit evidence obtained from this analysis was dependent upon the firm's testing of cash receipts data underlying the analysis. The firm also performed tests of details and substantive analytical procedures over the revenue using data from system-generated reports provided by the issuer. The following deficiency was identified: • With respect to the software-assisted analysis the firm did not perform procedures to test the cash receipts data underlying the analysis. (AS 1105.10)

The firm did not perform procedures to test whether all criteria were met to recognize revenue. (AS 2301.08)

The sample size the firm used in its substantive procedure to test revenue was too small to achieve the planned objective for the test because it used the methodology for determining a 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 firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the issuer's review of revenue recognized over time. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the reports that the control owners used in the operation of these controls. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer generally recognized revenue for two categories of revenue. The firm selected for testing controls over one category of revenue that consisted of a monthly review of revenue recognition and a quarterly review over financial statement line items. For the monthly review control the firm did not evaluate whether the control was designed to ensure all relevant revenue recognition criteria had been met. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer generally recognized revenue for two categories of revenue. The firm selected for testing controls over one category of revenue that consisted of a monthly review of revenue recognition and a quarterly review over financial statement line items. For the quarterly review control the firm did not evaluate the review procedures that 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 the second category of revenue the firm did not identify and test any controls over revenue recognition. (AS 2201.39)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether the issuer's recognition of certain revenue was in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2301.08 and .13)