Explorer

The firm did not identify and test any controls to address revenue adjustments. (AS 2201.39)

The firm did not test the completeness of data used in its substantive procedures to test cut-off. (AS 1105.10)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm selected for testing certain controls over revenue. The following deficiency was identified: · For certain controls over the recording of revenue that consisted of matching information from the invoice to other data the firm did not directly test the operating effectiveness of the controls because its procedures were substantive in nature. (AS 2201.42 .44 and .B9)

The firm selected for testing certain review controls over revenue. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to evaluate the appropriateness of the (1) timing of revenue recognition and (2) price changes from the issuer's system. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The sample size the firm used in its substantive procedures to test certain revenue was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because the 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's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm selected for testing certain controls over revenue. The following deficiency was identified: · For certain management review controls the firm did not evaluate the specific 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 firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm selected for testing certain controls over revenue. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to test or identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain system-generated reports it used to make its selections for testing the operating effectiveness of certain controls over revenue. (AS 1105.10)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The sample size the firm used in its substantive procedures to test revenue was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because the 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 sample size the firm used in its substantive procedures to test service 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 deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the reliability of reports obtained from the issuer's franchisees that it used in its substantive procedures because it limited its procedures to performing a walkthrough of the issuer's process to access the reports and vouching certain transactions. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The firm selected for confirmation a sample of revenue transactions. The firm emailed the franchisees the confirmation request and received electronic responses. The firm did not consider performing procedures to address the risk associated with electronic responses beyond verifying the correspondent's name was consistent with the authorized respondent's name. (AS 2310.29)

The issuer reported revenue from the sale of products. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm selected for testing a control that included reviews of product pricing. The firm did not evaluate the review procedures that certain of 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. Further the firm did not test the design and operating effectiveness of another aspect of this control. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer reported revenue from the sale of products. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm selected for testing a control that included the review of price overrides. The firm did not test the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to evaluate the appropriateness of price changes. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer reported revenue from the sale of products. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of information used in the operation of one of the above controls and another control over the review of journal entries related to revenue. (AS 2201.39)

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

The issuer also reported revenue from the performance of services. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the satisfaction of performance obligations for this revenue. (AS 2201.39)

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

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed the revenue area but did not identify the deficiency below. The issuer used multiple service organizations to host and/or maintain information technology (IT) systems that the issuer used to initiate process and record transactions related to this revenue. · The firm selected for testing complementary user controls that consisted of the issuer's reviews of user access to these IT systems. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to determine whether previously granted access continued to be appropriate. (AS 2201.42 .44 and .B22)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed this area but did not identify certain of the deficiency below. The firm identified a control deficiency related to the issuer's lack of controls over amounts invoiced to customers. The firm identified various controls that it believed would compensate for this deficiency but did not identify that these controls did not address whether amounts invoiced to customers were accurate. (AS 2201.68)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed this area but did not identify certain of the deficiency below. The firm selected for testing various controls over revenue but did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain system-generated data that were used in the operation of these controls. (AS 2201.39)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed this area but did not identify certain of the deficiency below. For certain types of revenue the firm did not perform any procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain system-generated data the firm used in its substantive testing. (AS 1105.10)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed this area but did not identify certain of the deficiency below. For certain types of revenue the firm used certain emails from the issuer's customers as audit evidence to test these types of revenue but did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether the information included in these emails was reliable. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed this area but did not identify certain of the deficiency below. For another type of revenue that included an estimate of variable consideration in the transaction price the following deficiency was identified: · The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of certain assumptions used to determine this estimate. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to assess the reasonableness of these assumptions. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed this area but did not identify certain of the deficiency below. For another type of revenue that included an estimate of variable consideration in the transaction price the following deficiency was identified: · The firm's approach for substantively testing this estimate was to test the issuer's process. The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of certain of the significant assumptions that the issuer used to determine this estimate. (AS 2501.16)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed this area but did not identify certain of the deficiency below. For another type of revenue that included an estimate of variable consideration in the transaction price the following deficiency was identified: · The firm's approach for substantively testing this estimate was to test the issuer's process. The firm did not test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain system-generated data that the issuer used to determine this estimate. (AS 1105.10)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed this area but did not identify certain of the deficiency below. For another type of revenue that included an estimate of variable consideration in the transaction price the following deficiency was identified: · The firm's procedures to test the occurrence of this revenue consisted of testing a sample of transactions from the last month of the year. The firm did not perform any procedures to test the remaining population of this revenue. (AS 2315.24)

The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue included testing a sample of transactions. The firm did not perform any procedures to test whether the performance obligation was satisfied before revenue was recognized. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed the revenue area but did not identify the deficiency below. The issuer used multiple service organizations to host and/or maintain information technology (IT) systems that the issuer used to initiate process and record transactions related to this revenue. · The firm selected for testing certain other controls over user access but did not perform procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain information that the firm used in its testing. (AS 1105.10)

The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue included testing a sample of transactions. The firm used information from the issuer and from external sources in its testing of certain of these transactions. The firm did not (1) test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the issuer-produced information and (2) evaluate the reliability of the external information. (AS 1105.04 .06 and .10)

The firm's substantive procedures to test certain revenue included testing a sample of transactions. The firm did not perform any procedures to test whether the performance obligation was satisfied before revenue was recognized. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm's substantive procedures to test certain revenue included testing a sample of transactions. The firm used certain issuer-produced data in these substantive procedures but did not test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of these data. (AS 1105.10)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed the revenue area but did not identify the deficiency below. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain information that the issuer used to process and record this revenue. Further the firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed whether the performance obligation was satisfied before this revenue was recognized. (AS 2201.39)

The firm's substantive procedures to test certain of the issuer's revenue disclosures consisted of tracing the amounts disclosed to schedules produced by the issuer. The firm did not perform any procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of these issuer-produced schedules. (AS 1105.10)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed the revenue area but did not identify the deficiency below. 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 deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The firm relied on controls it selected for testing in its approach to testing revenue at two of the issuer's business units. The following deficiencies were identified: · For the first business unit the only control the firm selected for testing over the occurrence of revenue consisted of the issuer's reconciliation of the sales subledger to the general ledger and its review of this reconciliation. The firm did not evaluate whether the design of this control was sufficient to address the risks of material misstatement related to the occurrence of sales transactions in the sales subledger. (AS 2301.19)

The firm relied on controls it selected for testing in its approach to testing revenue at two of the issuer's business units. The following deficiencies were identified: · For the second business unit the firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of sales transactions included in the general ledger. The firm's testing of this control was not sufficient because the firm did not directly test the review procedures that the control owner performed. (AS 2301.19 .21 and .23)

The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the issuer's reviews of gross margins estimates of revenue deductions and customer shipments and invoices. The firm did not evaluate the review procedures that the control owners performed including the procedures to identify items for follow up and/or the procedures to determine whether those items were appropriately resolved. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm relied on controls it selected for testing in its approach to testing revenue at two of the issuer's business units. The following deficiencies were identified: · 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 deficiencies 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 revenue consisted of selecting a sample of transactions for testing. The following deficiencies were identified: · For certain transactions selected for testing the firm did not perform any procedures to test whether the performance obligations had been satisfied before revenue was recognized. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue consisted of selecting a sample of transactions for testing. The following deficiencies were identified: · For certain other transactions selected for testing the firm used issuer-produced data or information from external sources in its testing. The firm did not (1) test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the issuer-produced data or (2) evaluate the reliability of the external information. (AS 1105.04 .06 and .10)

The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue consisted of selecting a sample of transactions for testing. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate whether the issuer (1) was acting as a principal or as an agent and (2) appropriately disclosed whether revenue was recognized at a point in time or over time. (AS 2301.08)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review and approval of customer price changes. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to assess the appropriateness of the price changes and whether they were appropriately approved. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue consisted of selecting a sample of transactions for testing. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test these transactions because it did not test (1) whether the issuer had a valid contract with the customer and (2) the issuer's determination of the transaction price. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of a significant assumption used to develop a reserve for certain customer discounts. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to assess the reasonableness of this assumption. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm's substantive procedures to test two types of revenue included selecting a sample of transactions for testing. The following deficiencies were identified: · For one of these revenue types the issuer recognized revenue for certain of these transactions based on labor hours recorded in the issuer's time system. The firm did not perform procedures to test the appropriateness of the labor hours allocated to these transactions. (AS 2301.08)

The firm's substantive procedures to test two types of revenue included selecting a sample of transactions for testing. The following deficiencies were identified: · For both of these revenue types the firm did not evaluate whether the issuer was acting as a principal or as an agent for these transactions. (AS 2301.08)

The firm used various system-generated reports and issuer-prepared schedules in its substantive testing of certain of the issuer's revenue and related disclosures but did not test or test any controls over the accuracy and/or completeness of these reports and schedules. (AS 1105.10)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed this area but did not identify the deficiency below. The firm used issuer-prepared schedules in its substantive testing of certain revenue disclosures but did not perform procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy and/or completeness of these schedules. (AS 1105.10)

The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue included performing substantive analytical procedures. The firm used certain issuer-produced production volume data to develop its expectations but did not sufficiently test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the production volume data because the firm's procedures were limited to comparing the production volume data to other issuer-produced data which were used to derive revenue. (AS 2305.16)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate whether the issuer met the revenue recognition criteria prior to recognizing revenue. (AS 2301.08 and .13)