Explorer

The issuer recorded revenue net of customer discounts returns rebates and other deductions. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test these revenue deductions. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

For one type of revenue the firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test whether performance obligations had been satisfied before revenue was recognized. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not identify and evaluate the issuer's omission of certain disclosures required under FASB ASC Topic 606. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The issuer recognized revenue from certain arrangements as single performance obligations satisfied at a point in time. The firm selected a sample of these revenue transactions for testing. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate whether the issuer recognized revenue in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers because it did not evaluate (1) the issuer's identification of the customers in these arrangements and (2) whether the issuer was acting as a principal or as an agent. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer recognized revenue from certain arrangements as single performance obligations satisfied at a point in time. The firm selected a sample of these revenue transactions for testing. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to test whether the performance obligations had been satisfied before revenue was recognized beyond comparing the transactions selected for testing to an issuer-produced report. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not sufficiently evaluate whether the issuer's accounting for certain other transactions as revenue was appropriate because it did not evaluate whether one or more of the scope exceptions under FASB ASC Topic 606 were applicable. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer recorded certain revenue based on transactions that occurred on applications maintained by external parties. The following deficiencies were identified: · For two types of revenue the firm did not perform substantive procedures to evaluate whether the performance obligations had been satisfied before revenue was recognized. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer recorded certain revenue based on transactions that occurred on applications maintained by external parties. The following deficiencies were identified: · To test a third type of revenue the firm sent positive confirmation requests to the external parties that maintained the applications. The firm's confirmation procedures were not sufficient because the firm did not consider whether the external parties would have the information necessary to confirm that the issuer's performance obligations had been satisfied. (AS 2310.26)

The issuer recorded certain revenue based on transactions that occurred on applications maintained by external parties. The following deficiencies were identified: · To test a third type of revenue the firm sent positive confirmation requests to the external parties that maintained the applications. For the items for which the requested confirmations were not returned the firm did not perform alternative procedures that provided sufficient appropriate audit evidence that the recorded amounts of revenue were accurate as of the confirmation date. (AS 2310.31)

For revenue at three business units which was affected by the ITGC audit deficiencies discussed above the firm selected for testing various controls that addressed the recognition of revenue when performance obligations were satisfied. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain information used in the operation of these controls. (AS 2201.39)

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

The firm did not identify and evaluate the issuer's omission of certain disclosures required under FASB ASC Topic 606 related to a description of the nature of certain services the issuer promised to transfer. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The issuer recorded certain revenue based on data in an electronic environment that were tracked by an IT system. To test this revenue the firm (1) sent positive confirmation requests to the issuer's customers with revenue over an established threshold and (2) selected a sample of transactions for testing. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm's confirmation procedures were not sufficient because the firm did not consider whether the issuer's customers would have the information necessary to confirm that the issuer's performance obligations had been satisfied. (AS 2310.26)

The issuer recorded certain revenue based on data in an electronic environment that were tracked by an IT system. To test this revenue the firm (1) sent positive confirmation requests to the issuer's customers with revenue over an established threshold and (2) selected a sample of transactions for testing. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate whether the transaction prices allocated to the issuer's performance obligations were based on standalone selling prices. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

For another type of revenue the firm did not perform procedures to test whether the issuer's performance obligation had been satisfied before revenue was recognized. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

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

The firm did not perform procedures to test or test controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain issuer-produced information that it used in its testing of (1) certain revenue and (2) the issuer's disclosure related to the remaining performance obligations. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer recognized revenue from contracts with customers that included an estimate of variable consideration in the transaction price; the issuer estimated this variable consideration using a portfolio of contracts approach. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate whether the issuer's method to estimate variable consideration was in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606 and appropriate for the nature of the revenue. (AS 2501.10)

The issuer recognized revenue from contracts with customers that included an estimate of variable consideration in the transaction price; the issuer estimated this variable consideration using a portfolio of contracts approach. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm used an issuer-prepared schedule of cash receipts by invoice in its substantive testing of the variable consideration estimate. The firm did not sufficiently test or test controls over the accuracy of this schedule because it did not perform procedures to evaluate whether the cash receipts throughout the period related to the associated invoices. (AS 1105.10)

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 the sample size the firm did not take into account tolerable misstatement the allowable risk of incorrect acceptance and the characteristics of the population. (AS 2315.16 .23 and .23A)

The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue included selecting samples of transactions for testing. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to test or test controls over the completeness of the populations it used to make its selections. (AS 1105.10)

The firm did not identify and evaluate the issuer's omission of certain disclosures required under FASB ASC Topic 606 related to revenue that is recognized over time. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The issuer recognized revenue from certain contracts over time using an input method based on costs incurred. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform substantive procedures to evaluate whether the costs incurred had been allocated to the appropriate contract. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer recognized revenue from certain contracts over time using an input method based on costs incurred. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm used certain labor information in its substantive testing of the costs incurred but did not test or test controls over the accuracy of this information. (AS 1105.10)

The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue included selecting samples of transactions for testing. The following deficiencies were identified: · The issuer recognized certain of this revenue upon (1) delivery and customer acceptance of products or (2) completion of its services. For certain selections the firm did not perform procedures to test whether (1) the customer had accepted the products or (2) the issuer had completed its services. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm used information obtained from external parties to test revenue. The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of this information. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The firm did not identify and evaluate the significance to the financial statements of the issuer's omission of disclosures required by FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers regarding transition and performance obligation information. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The issuer recognized revenue from certain contracts primarily based on sales data. The firm selected controls over revenue for testing that included the use of sales data. The firm's work papers included an adjustment the issuer recorded to previously recognized revenue due to inaccurate sales data. In evaluating the design of the controls selected for testing the firm did not assess the effect of inaccurate sales data on whether the controls could effectively prevent or detect a material misstatement. (AS 2201.42)

The sample size the firm used in its substantive procedures to test revenue 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 deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The firm used data from external sources in its substantive testing of certain revenue but did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate whether this data was reliable. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The firm selected revenue transactions for testing. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to test or test any controls over the completeness of the listing from which revenue transactions were selected for testing. (AS 1105.10)

The firm selected revenue transactions for testing. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate whether (1) performance obligations were appropriately identified (2) the allocation of revenue between performance obligations was appropriate and (3) appropriate amounts were deferred. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not sufficiently test the completeness of deferred revenue because the firm selected transactions for testing from items recorded as deferred revenue. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm tested the design effectiveness of ITGCs for two applications used to process revenue transactions. The firm's substantive procedures to test certain revenue transactions consisted of testing the automated calculation for a sample of transactions. The sample sizes the firm used 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 because the firm did not test the operating effectiveness of ITGCs for the two applications discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 .21 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The firm did not test the accuracy and completeness of data included in certain reports used by the firm in its substantive procedures. (AS 1105.10)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed this area but did not identify the deficiency below. The firm selected for testing a control over revenue that consisted of the issuer's review of the financial statements of certain subsidiaries. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to evaluate whether the amounts recognized as revenue at these subsidiaries were appropriate. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer recognized certain revenue upon shipment of its products to distributors. Certain contracts for this revenue included provisions for customer pricing rebates. The firm did not identify and evaluate the significance to the issuer's financial statements of departures from GAAP related to (1) the issuer not considering the rebates in estimating at the time revenue was recognized the amount of consideration to which it was entitled in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers and (2) the issuer's disclosures inaccurately stating that customer pricing rebates were recorded as a reduction of revenue in the same period the related sales were recorded. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

To substantively test revenue the firm selected sales transactions for testing. For these selections the firm did not evaluate whether all of the relevant revenue recognition criteria had been met. (AS 2301.08)

Certain of the issuer's revenue arrangements included multiple performance obligations. The issuer recognized revenue from certain contracts as either single performance obligations or multiple performance obligations satisfied at a point in time. The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue consisted of selecting a sample of transactions for testing. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate the issuer's contract terms with its customers to determine whether the issuer recognized revenue in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenues from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

Certain of the issuer's revenue arrangements included multiple performance obligations. The issuer recognized revenue from certain contracts as either single performance obligations or multiple performance obligations satisfied at a point in time. The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue consisted of selecting a sample of transactions for testing. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the issuer's identification of performance obligations because it did not evaluate (1) the issuer's basis for concluding that the goods or services or bundles thereof represented single or multiple performance obligations including any ‘series' performance obligations; and (2) whether any performance obligations met the criteria for recognition over time. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

Certain of the issuer's revenue arrangements included multiple performance obligations. The issuer recognized revenue from certain contracts as either single performance obligations or multiple performance obligations satisfied at a point in time. The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue consisted of selecting a sample of transactions for testing. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not perform any procedures to test whether performance obligations had been satisfied before revenue was recognized for all but four transactions selected for testing. (AS 2301.08 and .13) For two of these transactions the firm did not test or test any controls over the completeness and accuracy of issuer-produced information used in its substantive testing. (AS 1105.10)

Certain of the issuer's revenue arrangements included multiple performance obligations. The issuer recognized revenue from certain contracts as either single performance obligations or multiple performance obligations satisfied at a point in time. The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue consisted of selecting a sample of transactions for testing. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not perform any procedures to test whether performance obligations had been satisfied before revenue was recognized for all but four transactions selected for testing. (AS 2301.08 and .13) For two of these transactions the firm did not test or test any controls over the completeness and accuracy of issuer-produced information used in its substantive testing. (AS 1105.10)

Certain of the issuer's revenue arrangements included multiple performance obligations. The issuer recognized revenue from certain contracts as either single performance obligations or multiple performance obligations satisfied at a point in time. The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue consisted of selecting a sample of transactions for testing. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm's sample was 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 population the allowance for incorrect acceptance and the characteristics of the population. (AS 2315.16 .19 .23 and .23A)

The firm did not evaluate whether the issuer's accounting for certain revenue as the principal rather than as an agent was appropriate. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer generated two types of revenue ('Revenue A' and 'Revenue B'). The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to test Revenue A. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer generated two types of revenue ('Revenue A' and 'Revenue B'). The following deficiencies were identified: · In selecting its sample of items to test Revenue B the firm did not determine whether it was appropriate to select items from accounts receivable activity reports that may not have included a complete population of revenue transactions for the year. Further in determining the sample size 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 2315.16 .23 .23A and .24)

The issuer generated two types of revenue ('Revenue A' and 'Revenue B'). The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the appropriateness of the issuer's financial statement presentation of revenue on a gross versus net basis. (AS 2810.30)

The issuer records multiple types of revenue. For one type of revenue the firm compared issuer revenue information to customer sales contracts. The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate whether (1) the issuer met its performance obligations before revenue was recognized; and (2) the method used to recognize revenue for one contract was appropriate. (AS 2301.08 and .11)

The issuer records multiple types of revenue. For another type of revenue the firm did not perform any procedures to test the revenue beyond agreeing revenue from three selected locations to an issuer-prepared schedule. (AS 2301.08 and .11)

For revenue from engineering and construction contracts at two of the issuer's subsidiaries the firm selected for testing multiple management review controls over revenue. The firm did not evaluate the review procedures that the control owners performed including the criteria that the control owners used to identify items for follow up and whether those items were appropriately resolved. (AS 2201.42 and .44)