Explorer

The sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test this revenue at three of these business units 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 the deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

With respect to user access: · The firm selected for testing a control over the approval of new or modified user access for each of these IT systems. The firm did not test the operating effectiveness of (1) this control for one of these systems and (2) the aspect of this control related to the modification of access for existing users for certain other of these systems. Further in its testing of the operating effectiveness of this control for certain IT systems the firm tested fewer items than the sample size it calculated. (AS 2201.44)

For certain revenue transactions that occurred throughout the audit period the firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed the risk related to the accuracy of prices and quantities invoiced. (AS 2201.39)

The sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test this 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 the deficiency in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The firm's substantive procedures to test certain revenue consisted of (1) testing a sample of revenue transactions and (2) performing analytical procedures. The following deficiencies were identified: · For certain of the transactions selected for testing the firm did not test whether revenue was recognized according to the contractual terms. (AS 2301.08)

The firm's substantive procedures to test certain revenue consisted of (1) testing a sample of revenue transactions and (2) performing analytical procedures. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm's analytical procedures consisted of calculating the issuer's gross margin. These procedures did not provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because the firm did not (1) develop an expectation and (2) establish a threshold for investigation of differences from the expectation. (AS 2305.17 and .20)

With respect to user access: · The firm selected for testing a control over the removal of access for terminated employees. For one of these IT systems the firm did not evaluate the control owner's procedures to determine whether access was appropriately removed for users identified as terminated. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

During the audit the firm did not identify and evaluate the significance to the financial statements of misstatements in a required disclosure under FASB ASC Topic 280 Segment Reporting. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

With respect to both user access and change management: · For certain IT systems the firm did not (1) identify and test controls and/or (2) test identified controls that addressed certain risks over change management and user access. (AS 2201.39)

With respect to both user access and change management: · For one of these IT systems the firm selected for testing controls related to (1) the monitoring of database changes and (2) privileged access review but did not perform any procedures beyond inquiry to test the design and operating effectiveness of these controls. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

With respect to both user access and change management: · For each of these IT systems the firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test or in the alternative test any controls over the completeness of certain system-generated reports that it used to make its selections for testing controls over change management and/or user access. (AS 1105.10)

As a result of the audit deficiencies discussed above the firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures to test or sufficiently test controls over (1) the completeness of certain system-generated reports that the firm used to make its selections to test various controls over certain revenue and related accounts and (2) the accuracy of certain system-generated data it used in its substantive testing of certain revenue and related accounts. (AS 1105.10)

The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the customer order information from various source systems that the issuer used to record revenue. (AS 2201.39)

The firm selected for testing two controls that consisted of the issuer's reviews of revenue transactions for appropriate revenue recognition. For the first control the firm did not test whether the control addressed all revenue transactions. For the second control the firm did not evaluate whether the issuer's review was sufficient to address the risks of material misstatement given not all revenue transactions were covered by this control. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's reviews of comparisons of current-period revenue to prior-period revenue. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy of certain revenue data used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

The firm's substantive procedures to test certain of this revenue consisted of (1) testing a sample of revenue transactions (2) testing a sample of accounts receivable and (3) performing analytical procedures. The following deficiencies were identified: · For certain of the transactions selected for testing which included multiple services provided to the customer the firm did not evaluate whether multiple performance obligations existed in the associated contract that would affect whether this revenue was appropriately recognized. (AS 2301.08)

The firm's substantive procedures to test certain of this revenue consisted of (1) testing a sample of revenue transactions (2) testing a sample of accounts receivable and (3) performing analytical procedures. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm determined its sample size for testing these revenue transactions based in part on the assurance it had obtained from its testing of a sample of accounts receivable at year end. This year-end accounts receivable testing did not provide the planned level of substantive evidence to address the risks of material misstatement related to this revenue because this procedure was primarily focused on the occurrence of revenue at a point in time. As a result the sample that the firm used to test this revenue was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence to address the risks of material misstatement related to this revenue throughout the year. (AS 2301.42; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The firm's substantive procedures to test certain of this revenue consisted of (1) testing a sample of revenue transactions (2) testing a sample of accounts receivable and (3) performing analytical procedures. The following deficiencies were identified: · For the analytical procedures the firm did not determine whether the expectations it used in these analytical procedures were based on predictable relationships. (AS 2305.13 and.14)

The issuer offered various forms of sales incentives to customers that were recorded as deductions from revenue. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test certain of these sales incentives beyond comparing the recorded balances to system-generated reports. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer offered various forms of sales incentives to customers that were recorded as deductions from revenue. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm's sample for testing certain other of these sales incentives was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because in determining the sample size the firm did not take into account tolerable misstatement and the allowable risk of incorrect acceptance. (AS 2315.16 .23 and .23A)

The issuer recognized certain revenue over time based on estimates of the goods and services it would provide to customers and the payments it would receive for those goods and services. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of the reasonableness of the forecasted information that the issuer used to develop these estimates. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy of the data that were used to develop this forecasted information. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer recognized certain revenue over time based on estimates of the goods and services it would provide to customers and the payments it would receive for those goods and services. The following deficiencies were identified: · The sample size the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test this 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 deficiency in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The issuer recognized certain revenue over time based on estimates of the goods and services it would provide to customers and the payments it would receive for those goods and services. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm's substantive procedures to test this revenue consisted of performing tests of details and substantive analytical procedures. The firm used certain system-generated data in its substantive testing of this revenue but did not test or in the alternative test any controls over the accuracy of these data. (AS 1105.10; AS 2305.16)

The issuer recognized certain revenue over time based on estimates of the goods and services it would provide to customers and the payments it would receive for those goods and services. The following deficiencies were identified: · To facilitate the issuer's fulfillment of its contracts for certain of this revenue the issuer's customers contributed certain goods and services that the issuer recognized as revenue. The firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures to evaluate whether this revenue was recognized in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers because it did not evaluate certain contractual terms and conditions that could affect revenue recognition. (AS 2810.30)

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 relative standalone selling price. The issuer disclosed that it used observable prices to determine the standalone selling prices for certain performance obligations in these arrangements. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of certain standalone selling prices. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to conclude that the prices the issuer used to determine the standalone selling prices for these performance obligations were observable. (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 relative standalone selling price. The issuer disclosed that it used observable prices to determine the standalone selling prices for certain performance obligations in these arrangements. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of certain standalone selling prices. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain reports that the control owner used in the operation of this control. (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 relative standalone selling price. The issuer disclosed that it used observable prices to determine the standalone selling prices for certain performance obligations in these arrangements. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed the establishment of the standalone selling price for new products. (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 relative standalone selling price. The issuer disclosed that it used observable prices to determine the standalone selling prices for certain performance obligations in these arrangements. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform substantive procedures to evaluate the issuer's determination and disclosure of whether it used observable prices to determine the standalone selling prices for these performance obligations in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed the risk that certain cash receipts from revenue transactions were not properly recorded to support that these revenue transactions were valid. (AS 2201.39)

The sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test this 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 the deficiency in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The firm's substantive procedures to test one type of revenue consisted of testing a sample of revenue transactions. For certain items in its sample the firm did not perform procedures to evaluate whether the issuer met certain revenue recognition criteria. (AS 2301.08)

The firm used system-generated data and reports in its testing of revenue. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy and/or completeness of one of these reports and certain other system-generated data certain of which the firm used in developing its expectations for substantive analytical procedures beyond observing the issuer generate this report. (AS 1105.10; AS 2305.16)

The issuer's contractual arrangements offered certain discounts primarily consisting of rebates and other deductions. For one type of revenue the issuer recorded these discounts as an expense. The firm did not evaluate whether the issuer's accounting for these discounts was in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606. (AS 2301.08)

The firm identified a control deficiency related to the issuer's review of changes to prices maintained in the issuer's general ledger. The firm identified and tested various controls that it believed would mitigate this deficiency. The firm did not identify that these compensating controls did not address the risk of material misstatement related to inaccurate price changes. (AS 2201.68)

For one type of revenue the firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed the risk related to the completeness and accuracy of data transferred from the issuer's revenue system to the general ledger. (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 firm performed procedures to test the accuracy of certain issuer-prepared data the firm used in its testing of the relative standalone selling prices. The extent of these procedures was not sufficient because the firm calculated its samples of items to test assuming a control reliance strategy but did not take into account that one of the controls the firm relied upon was ineffective. (AS 1105.10)

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 relative standalone selling prices. With respect to revenue at one business unit the firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the standalone selling prices that the issuer used. (AS 2301.08)

With respect to certain revenue at the remaining business units (“other revenue”) the firm did not evaluate whether the risks of material misstatement that the firm associated with certain revenue at the first business unit that was subject to more extensive audit procedures also applied to this other revenue. (AS 2101.11 and .12)

The firm did not identify and evaluate a misstatement in a required disclosure under FASB ASC Topic 606 related to the disaggregation of revenue. (AS 2810.30 and .31) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated this disclosure and determined that an error existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer did not file an amended Form 10-K or Form 8-K indicating that its previously issued financial statements should not be relied on. Instead the issuer corrected this error in a subsequent filing by revising the disclosure.

For this type of revenue the issuer entered into arrangements where it could either be acting in the capacity of a principal or an agent and as a result would record revenue on either a gross or net basis. The following additional deficiencies were identified: · For one business unit the firm selected for testing a control that included the issuer's review of changes to prices in the issuer's IT system for existing customers. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to assess the accuracy of these price changes. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

For this type of revenue the issuer entered into arrangements where it could either be acting in the capacity of a principal or an agent and as a result would record revenue on either a gross or net basis. The following additional deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed whether the issuer was acting as a principal or an agent in these arrangements. (AS 2201.39)

For this type of revenue the issuer entered into arrangements where it could either be acting in the capacity of a principal or an agent and as a result would record revenue on either a gross or net basis. The following additional deficiencies were identified: · The issuer used point-of-sale systems to accumulate and transmit transaction data to certain of the issuer's IT systems and recorded revenue based on these data. The firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed the accuracy and completeness of these data. (AS 2201.39)

For this type of revenue the issuer entered into arrangements where it could either be acting in the capacity of a principal or an agent and as a result would record revenue on either a gross or net basis. The following additional deficiencies were identified: · The firm's substantive procedures to test this revenue included testing a sample of revenue transactions. For the transactions selected for testing the firm did not evaluate whether the issuer was acting as a principal or as an agent for this revenue. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

For this type of revenue the issuer entered into arrangements where it could either be acting in the capacity of a principal or an agent and as a result would record revenue on either a gross or net basis. The following additional deficiencies were identified: · The firm used transaction data from the issuer's point-of-sale systems in its substantive testing. For one business unit the firm did not sufficiently test the accuracy and completeness of these data because the firm (1) did not select its sample from the full population and (2) for most of its selections limited its procedures to comparing the data to reports generated from the same transmitted data. (AS 1105.10)

For this type of revenue the issuer entered into arrangements where it could either be acting in the capacity of a principal or an agent and as a result would record revenue on either a gross or net basis. The following additional deficiencies were identified: · The firm used transaction data from the issuer's point-of-sale systems in its substantive testing. For one business unit the firm did not perform any procedures to test or identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of these data. (AS 1105.10)

For two types of revenue one of which was affected by other audit deficiencies 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 relative standalone selling prices. The following additional deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed the estimate of the standalone selling prices of the performance obligations. (AS 2201.39)

For two types of revenue one of which was affected by other audit deficiencies 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 relative standalone selling prices. The following additional deficiencies were identified: · For certain contracts the firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed whether the allocation of the transaction price to the separate performance obligations was based on the standalone selling prices. (AS 2201.39)

For two types of revenue one of which was affected by other audit deficiencies 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 relative standalone selling prices. The following additional deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate whether the methods that the issuer used to estimate the standalone selling prices were in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606 because the firm did not evaluate whether the issuer's methods maximized the use of observable inputs. (AS 2501.10)

For two types of revenue one of which was affected by other audit deficiencies 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 relative standalone selling prices. The following additional deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to test or test any controls over the completeness of the information the issuer used to estimate the standalone selling prices. (AS 1105.10)

For two types of revenue one of which was affected by other audit deficiencies 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 relative standalone selling prices. The following additional deficiencies were identified: · For certain contracts the firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test whether the allocation of the transaction price was based on standalone selling prices. (AS 2301.08 and .13)