Explorer

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)

The issuer disclosed in its financial statements that it recognized revenue under FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. The firm did not evaluate the appropriateness of the issuer's recognition of revenue under FASB ASC Topic 606. (AS 2810.30)

The firm did not test or in the alternative test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of issuer-prepared data used in its substantive testing of revenue. (AS 1105.10)

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 reliability of such information. (AS 1105.04 and .06; AS 2502.40)

The firm did not evaluate whether the issuer's financial statements included sufficient disclosures of the risks and uncertainties related to its revenue and related activities in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 275 Risks and Uncertainties and other relevant standards. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm did not perform any procedures to determine whether any of the revenue and related activities were with related parties. (AS 2410.10)

The firm did not perform procedures to test whether services had been rendered prior to the issuer's recognition of certain service revenue. (AS 2301.08)

With respect to Revenue the firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test revenue. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer operates a recreational vehicle (RV) resort and earns revenue from site rental fees. The issuer also earns revenue from other services and from retail sales from a general store and recreational vehicle parts store. To test site rental revenue the firm selected a sample from a system-generated arrival report for a dual-purpose test of controls and substantive procedures. The firm's procedures did not address whether revenue was recognized only when customers occupied spaces as the firm did not perform any procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the check in and check out dates from the system-generated arrival report used in its testing. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer operates a recreational vehicle (RV) resort and earns revenue from site rental fees. The issuer also earns revenue from other services and from retail sales from a general store and recreational vehicle parts store. To test site rental revenue the firm selected a sample from a system-generated arrival report for a dual-purpose test of controls and substantive procedures. The sample size used in its substantive procedures was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because the firm used a sample size for control testing which did not take into account tolerable misstatement for the population the allowable risk of incorrect acceptance and the characteristics of the population. (AS 2315.16 .19 .23 .23A and .44)

The issuer operates a recreational vehicle (RV) resort and earns revenue from site rental fees. The issuer also earns revenue from other services and from retail sales from a general store and recreational vehicle parts store. For revenue recognized from retail sales and one type of service the firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test this revenue. (AS 2301.08 and .11)

The firm designed certain of its substantive procedures to test revenue as a dual-purpose test. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing as part of this dual-purpose test a control that consisted of the issuer's review of the shipping terms between the shipping documents and the issuer's revenue system. The firm did not evaluate whether this control was designed to achieve the desired audit objective for all relevant assertions given the control was limited to the review of the shipping terms. (AS 2301.13 .19 and .47)

The firm designed certain of its substantive procedures to test revenue as a dual-purpose test. The following deficiencies were identified: · The sample size the firm used was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because in determining the sample size the firm did not (1) take into account tolerable misstatement and the allowable risk of incorrect acceptance and (2) use the larger of the samples that would otherwise have been designed for the two separate purposes. (AS 2315.16 .19 .23 .23A and .44)

The issuer had three categories of revenue that were derived from contractual agreements with varying terms and conditions that could affect the amount and timing of revenue to be recognized. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not determine the likely sources of potential misstatements associated with these categories of revenue to identify and test controls that addressed the risks of misstatement for the relevant assertions of each category of revenue beyond testing one control related to the issuer's review of sales orders for one category of revenue. (AS 2201.30 and .39)

The issuer had three categories of revenue that were derived from contractual agreements with varying terms and conditions that could affect the amount and timing of revenue to be recognized. The following deficiencies were identified: · With respect to firm's testing of the control over the review of sales orders discussed above 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 had three categories of revenue that were derived from contractual agreements with varying terms and conditions that could affect the amount and timing of revenue to be recognized. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm's substantive procedures to test one category of revenue consisted of confirming accounts receivable at year end and testing the first five shipments after year end. These procedures did not provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because the procedures (1) only addressed revenue recorded close to year end and (2) did not include testing of whether revenue recognition criteria had been met. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer reported several types of revenue. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to examine a material adjustment the issuer made to revenue during the course of preparing the financial statements. (AS 2301.41)

The issuer reported several types of revenue. The following deficiency was identified: • For one type of revenue the firm did not perform procedures to evaluate whether the issuer satisfied its performance obligations before recognizing revenue. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer reported several types of revenue. The following deficiency was identified: • For other types of revenue the firm did not perform procedures to evaluate whether the issuer satisfied its performance obligations beyond obtaining evidence of cash receipts or an issuerprepared schedule in certain instances. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the reliability of external information it used to test certain revenue beyond comparing certain of the information to an issuer-produced report that was itself based on that external information. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test revenue. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer recognized certain revenue at the time risk of loss was transferred to the customer and also recorded subsequent adjustments to revenue based on information related to quality issues and the final sales price. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected a sample of sales transactions during the year to test. The firm did not test the prices or evaluate the terms and conditions. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer recognized certain revenue at the time risk of loss was transferred to the customer and also recorded subsequent adjustments to revenue based on information related to quality issues and the final sales price. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not test any adjustments made in the fourth quarter. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer recognized certain revenue at the time risk of loss was transferred to the customer and also recorded subsequent adjustments to revenue based on information related to quality issues and the final sales price. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected a sample of sales transactions to test cut-off. The firm did not test certain transactions selected for testing. (AS 2301.08)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm did not identify and test any controls that address whether the relevant revenue recognition criteria were met prior to recognizing revenue. (AS 2201.39)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The issuer recognized several types of revenue. With respect to two types of revenue the firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether the methods the issuer used to recognize this revenue were in conformity with GAAP. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate whether the issuer had satisfied its performance obligations prior to recognizing these two types of revenue because it limited its procedures to reviewing certain external information and/or testing that the issuer had received cash. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. With respect to these two types of revenue and another type of revenue the firm did not perform procedures to evaluate whether the issuer met certain other revenue recognition criteria prior to recognizing revenue. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm did not (1) perform substantive procedures to evaluate whether the relevant revenue recognition criteria had been met prior to recognizing revenue and (2) perform any substantive procedures to address certain fraud risks. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed 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 disclosures related to revenue. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The issuer recognized certain of its revenue from fees that were based on the number of transactions processed each month. The firm did not perform audit procedures to test the accuracy and completeness of this data that it used in its testing of revenue. (AS 1105.10)

The firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed the risks that the performance obligations and transaction prices were not properly identified and that revenue was not properly recognized in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2201.39) Unrelated and subsequent to our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for revenue from customer contracts and concluded that a material misstatement existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently corrected this misstatement in a restatement of its financial statements and the firm revised and reissued its report on the financial statements. The issuer also reevaluated its controls over revenue and concluded that material weaknesses existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently reflected these material weaknesses in a revision of its report on ICFR and the firm revised and reissued its report on ICFR to include these additional material weaknesses.

The firm did not identify and appropriately address a departure from GAAP related to the issuer's inclusion of unexercised and non-binding customer purchase options in its determination of revenue recognized from customer contracts which was not in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606. (AS 2810.30) Unrelated and subsequent to our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for revenue from customer contracts and concluded that a material misstatement existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently corrected this misstatement in a restatement of its financial statements and the firm revised and reissued its report on the financial statements. The issuer also reevaluated its controls over revenue and concluded that material weaknesses existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently reflected these material weaknesses in a revision of its report on ICFR and the firm revised and reissued its report on ICFR to include these additional material weaknesses.

The issuer used direct labor costs from its timekeeping system in its actual costs incurred used to determine revenue recognition. The firm tested certain information-technology ('IT') dependent manual controls that used data from the timekeeping system but the firm did not identify and test any ITGCs or other controls over the issuer's timekeeping system. As a result the firm's testing of IT dependent manual controls was not sufficient. (AS 2201.46)

The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of reviews of a spreadsheet used to accumulate actual costs incurred and total estimated contract costs and calculate revenue recognized by contract. 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 firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed these areas and did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm selected for testing a control over revenue. Except for one of the selected items that was part of the firm's walkthrough the firm did not test the specific review procedures that the control owner performed over certain aspects of this control beyond inspecting for evidence of the control owners' approval. (AS 2201.44)

For revenue recognized from certain customers the firm did not perform procedures to determine whether the transactions selected for testing met the revenue recognition criteria. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer recognized revenue from customer contracts over time based on costs incurred to date relative to total estimated costs to complete the contracts. For certain of these contracts that were selected for testing the firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of the estimated costs to complete beyond (1) comparing for each contract the estimated costs to complete at year end to the estimated costs to complete at the subsequent month end and (2) inquiring of management. (AS 2501.07)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed this area but did not identify the deficiencies below. The issuer recognized revenue when customer invoices were generated based on shipment information that was entered into the issuer's systems. The firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed whether customer invoices were associated with valid customer orders and shipments. Further the firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed whether the performance obligation had been satisfied when revenue was recognized. (AS 2201.39)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed this area but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review and approval of certain revenue deductions. The firm did not test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the system-generated report that it used to select its samples for testing this control. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer recognized revenue from finance leases. The firm did not identify and evaluate a departure from IFRS related to the issuer's exclusion of the present value of the exercise price of purchase options in determining the lease payments as required by IFRS 16 Leases. (AS 2810.30) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for revenue from finance leases and determined a misstatement existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer did not file an amended Form 20-F or Form 6-K indicating that its previously issued financial statements should not be relied on. Instead the issuer corrected this misstatement in a subsequent filing by revising the prior-period financial statements.

The issuer recognized certain revenue on the percentage-of-completion basis. To test this revenue the firm selected a sample of open projects. For the selected open projects the firm did not perform procedures beyond obtaining issuer-produced documentation to test the transaction price at contract inception. (CAS 330.6)

The firm did not identify and evaluate a departure from IFRS related to the issuer's incorrect disclosure that all proceeds from government grants were included in vehicle sales revenue when certain of those proceeds were included in finance lease revenue. (AS 2810.30 and .31) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its disclosures regarding government grants and determined that misstatements existed in disclosures that had not been previously identified. The issuer did not file an amended Form 20-F or Form 6-K indicating that its previously issued financial statements should not be relied on. Instead the issuer corrected these misstatements in a subsequent filing by revising the disclosures.

The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the disclosures of vouchers from government programs as 'government grants' that may have suggested that the 'grants' were for the economic benefit of the issuer and that IAS 20 Accounting for Government Grants and Disclosure of Government Assistance was applicable. (AS 2301.08) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its disclosures regarding government grants and determined that misstatements existed in disclosures that had not been previously identified. The issuer did not file an amended Form 20-F or Form 6-K indicating that its previously issued financial statements should not be relied on. Instead the issuer corrected these misstatements in a subsequent filing by revising the disclosures.

The firm's substantive procedures to test certain revenue consisted of a test of details and analytical procedures. The firm used certain transactional data in these procedures but did not test or in the alternative test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of these data. (AS 1105.10; AS 2301.17; AS 2305.16)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate information that appeared to indicate that all revenue recognition criteria may not have been met. The firm's procedures were limited to inquiry of management and internal counsel and inspecting a delivery document that did not include information related to the contents of the package and/or the name of the entity receiving the delivery. (AS 2301.08; AS 2810.03)

The issuer used a service organization to process and record revenue transactions. The firm's approach to substantively test revenue included reliance on controls including controls over the accuracy and completeness of transaction data that the issuer obtained from the service organization. The firm did not perform any procedures to test the operating effectiveness of complementary user controls in place at the issuer. (AS 2601.14)

The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue included analytical procedures. The firm used the transaction data from the service organization to develop its expectations but did not perform any substantive procedures to test or in the alternative sufficiently test controls over (as discussed above) the accuracy and completeness of these data. (AS 2305.16)

With respect to Revenue the firm designed certain of its substantive procedures as a dual-purpose test. The firm performed its substantive procedures using the sample size it determined for its control testing. This sample size was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because the firm did not use the larger of the samples that would otherwise have been designed for the two separate purposes. (AS 2315.44)

The firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures to test certain of the issuer's revenue because its procedures were limited to vouching a sample of sales transactions recorded by the issuer to the bill of sale for each transaction. (AS 2301.08)