Explorer

To test certain revenue the firm selected contracts for testing that met specific criteria to evaluate whether the revenue was appropriately recognized based on the terms of those contracts. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the remaining population of revenue transactions from this revenue source. (AS 1105.27; AS 2301.08 and .11)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test certain revenue because the firm did not perform any test of details to address the fraud risk related to the occurrence of revenue. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

Certain of the issuer's revenue arrangements included multiple performance obligations. The issuer allocated the total transaction price for each of these arrangements to the separate performance obligations based on the issuer's estimate of the relative standalone selling prices. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls over the issuer's determination of the standalone selling prices. (AS 2201.39)

Certain of the issuer's revenue arrangements included multiple performance obligations. The issuer allocated the total transaction price for each of these arrangements to the separate performance obligations based on the issuer's estimate of the relative standalone selling prices. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the standalone selling prices that the issuer used to record revenue. (AS 2301.08)

Certain of the issuer's revenue arrangements included multiple performance obligations. The issuer allocated the total transaction price for each of these arrangements to the separate performance obligations based on the issuer's estimate of the relative standalone selling prices. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate certain contractual terms and conditions that could affect the issuer's determination of the duration of certain contracts and the related revenue recognition. (AS 2301.08)

Certain of the issuer's revenue arrangements included multiple performance obligations. The issuer allocated the total transaction price for each of these arrangements to the separate performance obligations based on the issuer's estimate of the relative standalone selling prices. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control that included the issuer's review of certain contracts under these types of arrangements for appropriate revenue recognition. The firm did not identify that the control was not designed to address whether the issuer considered all reasonably available information when estimating the standalone selling prices. (AS 2201.42)

Certain of the issuer's revenue arrangements included multiple performance obligations. The issuer allocated the total transaction price for each of these arrangements to the separate performance obligations based on the issuer's estimate of the relative standalone selling prices. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate whether the methods that the issuer used to estimate the standalone selling prices maximized the use of observable inputs in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2501.10)

Certain of the issuer's revenue arrangements included multiple performance obligations. The issuer allocated the total transaction price for each of these arrangements to the separate performance obligations based on the issuer's estimate of the relative standalone selling prices. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate whether the methods that the issuer used to determine the effect of changes in the transaction price after contract inception were in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606 beyond observing that certain changes were approved. (AS 2501.10)

Certain of the issuer's revenue arrangements included multiple performance obligations. The issuer allocated the total transaction price for each of these arrangements to the separate performance obligations based on the issuer's estimate of the relative standalone selling prices. The estimated standalone selling prices were based on an expected cost plus a margin approach that involved significant assumptions. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform procedures beyond reading an issuer-prepared analysis to assess whether the services promised in the issuer's contracts were distinct and should have been accounted for as separate performance obligations. (AS 2301.08 and .13) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for these arrangements and concluded that misstatements existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently filed a Form 8-K disclosing that its previously issued financial statements should no longer be relied upon and that it plans on restating its financial statements to correct these misstatements.

Certain of the issuer's revenue arrangements included multiple performance obligations. The issuer allocated the total transaction price for each of these arrangements to the separate performance obligations based on the issuer's estimate of the relative standalone selling prices. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of certain contracts under these types of arrangements for appropriate revenue recognition. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to evaluate whether the contracts contained embedded leases and whether all performance obligations were identified. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

Certain of the issuer's revenue arrangements included multiple performance obligations. The issuer allocated the total transaction price for each of these arrangements to the separate performance obligations based on the issuer's estimate of the relative standalone selling prices. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not sufficiently evaluate whether certain contracts contained embedded leases because it did not evaluate certain terms that may have met the definition of a lease. (AS 2301.08; AS 2810.03)

Certain of the issuer's revenue arrangements included multiple performance obligations. The issuer allocated the total transaction price for each of these arrangements to the separate performance obligations based on the issuer's estimate of the relative standalone selling prices. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not sufficiently evaluate whether all performance obligations were identified for certain contracts because it did not identify that the contracts contained an option that may have represented a material right. (AS 2301.08; AS 2810.03)

Certain of the issuer's revenue arrangements included multiple performance obligations. The issuer allocated the total transaction price for each of these arrangements to the separate performance obligations based on the issuer's estimate of the relative standalone selling prices. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls over the issuer's determination of the standalone selling prices. (AS 2201.39)

Certain of the issuer's revenue arrangements included multiple performance obligations. The issuer allocated the total transaction price for each of these arrangements to the separate performance obligations based on the issuer's estimate of the relative standalone selling prices. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumptions the issuer used to estimate standalone selling prices. (AS 2501.16)

Certain of the issuer's revenue arrangements included multiple performance obligations. The issuer allocated the total transaction price for each of these arrangements to the separate performance obligations based on the issuer's estimate of the relative standalone selling prices. The estimated standalone selling prices were based on an expected cost plus a margin approach that involved significant assumptions. The following deficiencies were identified: · For certain contracts the issuer recognized revenue over time using an output method to measure its progress toward completion of its performance obligations. The firm did not evaluate whether this method was in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2501.10) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for these arrangements and concluded that misstatements existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently filed a Form 8-K disclosing that its previously issued financial statements should no longer be relied upon and that it plans on restating its financial statements to correct these misstatements.

The firm identified control deficiencies related to controls over certain revenue contracts at one of the issuer's locations. The firm did not evaluate the severity of these control deficiencies individually or in combination to determine whether they represented a material weakness. (AS 2201.62)

Certain of the issuer's revenue arrangements included multiple performance obligations. In its evaluation of the issuer's revenue recognition for these arrangements the firm did not evaluate beyond reading certain issuer-prepared memorandums (1) whether the issuer identified all performance obligations in its customer contracts and (2) certain contractual terms and conditions that could affect the issuer's revenue recognition. (AS 2301.08)

Certain of the issuer's revenue arrangements included multiple performance obligations. The issuer allocated the total transaction price for each of these arrangements to the separate performance obligations based on the issuer's estimate of the relative standalone selling prices. The estimated standalone selling prices were based on an expected cost plus a margin approach that involved significant assumptions. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the expected costs of satisfying the performance obligations and related margins. (AS 2501.16) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for these arrangements and concluded that misstatements existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently filed a Form 8-K disclosing that its previously issued financial statements should no longer be relied upon and that it plans on restating its financial statements to correct these misstatements.

The issuer recognized certain revenue based on the issuer's estimate of the number of customers enrolled in plans under which the issuer provided services. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate whether the issuer had a reasonable basis for this significant assumption because it did not evaluate the relevance of certain historical customer data that the issuer adjusted and used to develop this significant assumption. (AS 1105.04 and .06; AS 2501.16)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate whether certain payments that the issuer recognized as revenue met the criteria for revenue recognition set forth in FASB ASC Topic 606. (AS 2301.08)

The firm selected for testing a control over revenue recognition that consisted of the issuer's review of customer contracts. The firm did not perform procedures to test or test any controls over the completeness of an issuer-prepared report of new and modified contracts from which it made its selections for testing. (AS 1105.10)

Deficiencies testing controls and substantive procedures over a revenue recognition judgment.

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 that consisted of the issuer's review of changes made to customer master file data that the issuer used to record revenue transactions. 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 issuer used multiple IT systems to calculate and record certain revenue based on the related order information. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm selected for testing certain automated controls that consisted of the configuration of various IT systems to automatically process and record certain revenue. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy of the order information included in the source systems that were used in the operation of these controls. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer used multiple IT systems to calculate and record certain revenue based on the related order information. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy of the order information used to calculate and record certain other revenue. (AS 2201.39).

The issuer used multiple IT systems to calculate and record certain revenue based on the related order information. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to test or (as discussed above) sufficiently test controls over the accuracy of the order information used in its substantive testing of certain revenue. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer used multiple IT systems to calculate and record certain revenue based on the related order information. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures to test the allocation of certain other revenue because it did not perform any procedures to test the accuracy of the order information used to calculate and record the revenue. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer used multiple IT systems to calculate and record certain revenue based on the related order information. The following deficiency was identified: · 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 certain of the deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The sample size the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test revenue was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because the firm (1) did not consider appropriate factors such as the firm's established tolerable misstatement and the characteristics of the population and (2) included erroneous inputs as to the size of the population identification of a significant risk and the level of assurance to be obtained from other procedures. (AS 2315.16 .23 and .23A)

The issuer's revenue processes were highly automated with transactions being initiated processed and recorded by multiple information-technology ('IT') systems. The firm used sales payment processing and cash receipt data generated or maintained by the IT systems in its substantive revenue testing. However the firm did not test or in the alternative identify and test any controls over the completeness and accuracy of the data. (AS 1105.10)

For its substantive revenue testing the firm selected transactions from the prepaid deposits and deferred revenue populations as of the end of the year under audit. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test transactions for which revenue had been recognized during the year. (AS 2301.08)

In performing its substantive procedures of the issuer's revenue the firm did not sufficiently evaluate whether (1) the issuer's arrangements with a third party represented a contract with an identifiable customer and (2) the issuer's performance obligations should be evaluated jointly or separately in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers ('ASC 606'). (AS 2810.30)

The firm used certain price and quantity information from outside sources in its substantive testing of revenue but did not perform any procedures to evaluate the relevance and/or reliability of such information. (AS 1105.04 and .06; AS 2502.40)

In its analytical procedures over revenue the firm used data from the issuer to develop its expectations but did not test the accuracy and completeness of the data. (AS 2305.16)

In its analytical procedures over revenue the firm did not (1) evaluate the plausibility and predictability of the relationship among the data used in developing the revenue expectations (2) establish thresholds for investigating differences from expectations and (3) perform procedures to evaluate differences identified beyond inquiries of management. (AS 2305.13 .14 .20 and .21)

With respect to service agreements with other parties the issuer prepared monthly schedules of its revenue earned from those agreements. The firm did not test the accuracy and completeness of certain data included in such schedules. (AS 1105.10)

With respect to service agreements with other parties the issuer prepared monthly schedules of its revenue earned from those agreements. The firm did not evaluate the inconsistency of certain data between the schedules the service agreements and the financial statement disclosures. (AS 2810.03)

The firm did not test or in the alternative identify and test any controls over the completeness and accuracy of a management report that the firm used in its substantive testing of revenue. (AS 1105.10)

The firm used certain price and quantity information from external sources in its substantive testing of revenue but did not perform any procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of such information. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The firm developed an independent expectation to test revenue but did not evaluate the relevance and reliability of data used to develop its expectation. (AS 1105.04 and .06; AS 2501.23)

The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate whether the issuer's accounting for certain revenue as the principal rather than as an agent was appropriate beyond obtaining an issuer-prepared analysis. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test whether the issuer satisfied its performance obligations for a second type of revenue because it limited its procedures to (1) obtaining cash receipts and sales invoices and (2) sending negative confirmations to a respondent who was a related party without considering the respondent's objectivity and freedom from bias and whether the response that was received by the firm provided meaningful and appropriate evidence. (AS 2301.08 and .13; AS 2310.26 and .27)

The firm selected a sample of transactions to test a third type of revenue. For certain of the sampled transactions the firm did not perform procedures to test the quantity used to recognize revenue beyond obtaining a system-generated report without testing or identifying and testing controls over the accuracy and completeness of the report. (AS 1105.10; AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of certain external information used in its substantive procedures to test certain revenue. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

In addition the firm performed a substantive analytical procedure to test this revenue. The firm developed its expectations for revenue using external data. The firm did not evaluate whether this data was sufficiently reliable for purposes of achieving its audit objective. (AS 2305.16)

The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of certain external data it used to test certain revenue. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The issuer's revenue included revenue recognized from contracts over time based on costs incurred to date relative to total estimated costs to complete. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the accuracy and completeness of an issuer-prepared schedule it used to test this revenue because it limited its procedures to comparing it to a system-generated report. Further the firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the accuracy and completeness of the system-generated report because it limited its testing to one item. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer's revenue included revenue recognized from contracts over time based on costs incurred to date relative to total estimated costs to complete. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to test or identify and test controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain other issuer-prepared schedules it used to test this revenue. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer's revenue included revenue recognized from contracts over time based on costs incurred to date relative to total estimated costs to complete. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumption related to estimated labor costs to complete because it limited its procedures to inquiry and a comparison to a report that included costs incurred subsequent to year end. Further the firm did not perform any procedures to test or identify and test controls over the accuracy and completeness of the report of costs incurred subsequent to year end. (AS 1105.10; AS 2501.16)

The issuer recognized certain revenue based on quantity and specified rates. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control over the completeness of reported quantities that consisted of management's comparison of the quantity reported by customers to information provided by external parties. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the relevance and reliability of the information provided by the external parties that was used in this control. (AS 2201.39)