Explorer

The issuer recognized revenue from contracts based on certain inputs. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test certain inputs used by the issuer in recognizing revenue as their procedures were limited to comparing the inputs to system-generated reports without performing procedures to test or identify and test controls over the accuracy of those reports. (AS 1105.10)

The firm's substantive procedures to test certain revenue included selecting a sample of transactions for testing. The firm's sample 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 did not sufficiently evaluate whether the issuer recognized revenue in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers because it limited its procedures to verifying that the issuer received cash or that cash received agreed to a sales contract. (AS 2810.30)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed certain of these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. To test revenue the firm selected revenue transactions that exceeded a monetary threshold. The following deficiency was identified: · For the selected transactions the firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test whether the issuer's performance obligations had been satisfied when revenue was recognized. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed certain of these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. To test revenue the firm selected revenue transactions that exceeded a monetary threshold. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to test the remaining revenue transactions. (AS 1105.27; AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed certain of these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm did not identify and evaluate departures from GAAP related to the issuer's omission of certain disclosures related to revenue that were required by FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

Deficiencies performing substantive procedures over selected revenue transactions and the remaining population.

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate whether the issuer's recognition of certain revenue was in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers because the firm did not evaluate certain requirements of FASB ASC Topic 606. (AS 2301.08)

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

The issuer's revenue included revenue recognized from contracts over time based on hours incurred to date relative to total estimated hours to complete. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm selected for testing controls that included the review of revenue. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures performed by the control owners to assess (i) that revenue was recognized in the appropriate period and (ii) the reasonableness of estimated hours to complete. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm did not perform procedures to test that the issuer satisfied its performance obligations prior to the recognition of revenue beyond obtaining an issuer-produced report and issuer-produced data. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer's revenue included revenue recognized from contracts over time based on hours incurred to date relative to total estimated hours to complete. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm selected for testing a control over the review of hours incurred. 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)

The issuer's revenue included revenue recognized from contracts over time based on hours incurred to date relative to total estimated hours to complete. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain issuer-produced information used in the operation of the above controls. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer's revenue included revenue recognized from contracts over time based on hours incurred to date relative to total estimated hours to complete. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls over the identification of performance obligations in contracts determination of the transaction price and allocation of the transaction price to the identified performance obligations. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer's revenue included revenue recognized from contracts over time based on hours incurred to date relative to total estimated hours to complete. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm selected for testing two controls that included the review of the presentation and disclosure of the financial statements. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures performed by the control owners to evaluate the reasonableness of a disclosure related to revenue. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer's revenue included revenue recognized from contracts over time based on hours incurred to date relative to total estimated hours to complete. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not test or (as discussed above) test controls over the accuracy and completeness of issuer-produced information used in its substantive testing. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer's revenue included revenue recognized from contracts over time based on hours incurred to date relative to total estimated hours to complete. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to test or identify and test controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain other issuer-produced information used in its substantive testing. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer's revenue included revenue recognized from contracts over time based on hours incurred to date relative to total estimated hours to complete. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to test disclosures related to performance obligations expected to be recognized at year end and the periods over which the issuer expects to recognize those amounts beyond obtaining issuer-produced reports. (AS 2501.07)

The issuer's revenue included revenue recognized from contracts over time based on hours incurred to date relative to total estimated hours to complete. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures beyond inquiry of management to evaluate the reasonableness of significant assumptions related to estimated hours to complete. (AS 2501.16)

The firm did not perform a test of details to address an identified fraud risk related to certain revenue; (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not evaluate whether a certain contract was with a customer and whether the issuer had identified all of the performance obligations; (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not evaluate whether the counterparty for one contract was a customer or acting as an agent for the issuer; (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not evaluate whether certain contracts constituted transactions with related parties requiring disclosure within the financial statements; (AS 2410.14 and .17)

The firm did not perform any procedures to test the allocation of the transaction price to the separate performance obligations for a certain contract; (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not evaluate for a certain type of revenue whether it was probable that the issuer would collect substantially all of the consideration to which the issuer was entitled in exchange for the satisfaction of its performance obligations. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer disclosed disaggregated revenue by source. The firm did not test the accuracy and completeness of the disclosure including addressing a difference between the amounts disclosed and the amounts per the firm's work papers. (AS 2301.08 and .13; AS 2810.03)

The firm did not evaluate whether certain revenue recognition criteria had been met in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2810.30)

For certain revenue the firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate (1) the issuer's identification of its performance obligations and (2) whether such obligations were satisfied before revenue was recognized. (AS 2301.08)

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

The firm did not identify and appropriately address a departure from GAAP related to the issuer's disclosures about its revenue recognition policy. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The issuer recognized revenue through multiple segments from foreign and domestic sales. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the recognition of revenue by one of the issuer's segments during the year from domestic sales to ensure that revenue was recognized only after performance obligations were satisfied and customers obtained control of the goods. (AS 2201.39)

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

To test certain revenue the firm selected revenue transactions that met specific criteria to evaluate whether the revenue was appropriately recognized. 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 .13)

The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue consisted of (1) testing a sample of revenue transactions and (2) performing substantive analytical procedures. The following deficiencies were identified: - For certain selected transactions the firm did not perform sufficient procedures because it limited its testing to comparing transactions to issuer-prepared information. (AS 2301.08)

The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue consisted of (1) testing a sample of revenue transactions and (2) performing substantive analytical procedures. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not perform any procedures to address an identified fraud risk related to revenue cut-off. (AS 2301.13)

The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue consisted of (1) testing a sample of revenue transactions and (2) performing substantive analytical procedures. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm's analytical procedures consisted of developing an expectation of revenue. The firm did not (1) test or in the alternative identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain data it used to develop its expectations (2) develop expectations at a level of precision that provided the desired level of assurance that differences that could be potential material misstatements individually or in the aggregate would be identified for investigation and (3) establish a threshold for investigation of differences from expectations. (AS 2305.16 .17 and .20)

The firm did not identify and evaluate the significance to the financial statements of a GAAP departure related to the omission of required disclosures under FASB ASC Subtopic 606-10-50 Revenue from Contracts with Customers— Overall — Disclosure and ASC Subtopic 235-10-50 Notes to Financial Statements — Overall — Disclosure including an accounting policy disclosure. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test or in the alternative test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of transactional data that was used by the issuer to record revenue and used by the firm in its test of details over a majority of the issuer's revenue. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer's revenue included equipment leases. The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether elements of these leases should have been accounted for as sales-type leases in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 842 Leases. (AS 2810.30)

The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether (1) the rate at which certain revenue was recognized was appropriate and (2) the performance obligations had been met prior to the recognition of certain of this revenue. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not identify and evaluate departures from GAAP related to the issuer's omission of certain disclosures required by FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

To test revenue the firm selected for testing certain 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)

To test revenue the firm selected for testing certain items that met specific criteria. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test certain other items affecting revenue. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate whether the issuer recognized certain revenue in conformity with IFRS 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers because it did not evaluate (1) whether a series of contracted services provided to the customer constituted separate performance obligations and (2) the effect of variable consideration on the issuer's determination of the transaction price. (AS 2810.30)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed this area but did not identify the deficiencies below. The issuer used multiple information-technology (IT) systems to initiate process and record revenue. In its testing of controls over certain revenue the firm tested various automated and IT-dependent manual controls that used data and reports generated or maintained by these IT systems. As a result of the following deficiencies in the firm's testing of IT general controls (ITGCs) over certain of these IT systems the firm's testing of these automated and IT-dependent controls was not sufficient. (AS 2201.46)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed this area but did not identify the deficiencies below. The issuer used multiple information-technology (IT) systems to initiate process and record revenue. The firm selected for testing certain ITGCs over user access to these IT systems. Management asserted that logical access to these IT systems was controlled through a third-party hosted IT solution used by the issuer and the firm obtained and evaluated a service auditor's report from this third-party hosted IT solution. The firm did not perform procedures to verify this assertion beyond inquiry of management and therefore the firm did not establish a basis to conclude that the logical access to these IT systems was only controlled through this third-party hosted IT solution. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed this area but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm used system-generated data to substantively test certain revenue but did not test or sufficiently test controls over the accuracy and completeness of this data. (AS 1105.10)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed this area but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm used payment information produced by a third-party service organization used by the issuer to substantively test certain revenue but did not perform any procedures to test the accuracy and completeness of this information. (AS 2301.08)

The firm's approach for testing revenue included selecting a sample of transactions from certain months during the year. In determining the sample size the firm did not consider the relevant factors including the firm's established tolerable misstatement for the population the allowable risk of incorrect acceptance and the characteristics of the population of sales transactions. As a result the sample size the firm used in its test of details was too small to achieve the planned audit objective. Further the firm's selection of transactions for testing was confined to transactions from certain months of the year not the entire population of net sales. Therefore the results of these audit procedures could not be projected to the entire population. (AS 2315.16 .23 .23A and .24)

The firm's approach for testing revenue included selecting a sample of transactions from certain months during the year. In determining the sample size the firm did not consider the relevant factors including the firm's established tolerable misstatement for the population the allowable risk of incorrect acceptance and the characteristics of the population of sales transactions. As a result the sample size the firm used in its test of details was too small to achieve the planned audit objective. Further the firm's selection of transactions for testing was confined to transactions from certain months of the year not the entire population of net sales. In addition the firm did not evaluate whether all revenue recognition criteria had been met for transactions selected for testing. (AS 2301.08)