Explorer

The firm did not perform procedures to test the allowance for doubtful accounts beyond obtaining the activity in the account for the year. (AS 2501.07)

The firm did not perform any procedures to test the allowance for doubtful accounts. (AS 2501.07)

The issuer entered into revenue arrangements with multiple elements and asserted that it allocated the total consideration from these arrangements between the different types of revenue based on the standalone selling prices. The following deficiencies were identified: · The issuer recognized one type of revenue over time based on costs incurred to date relative to total estimated costs to complete the contract. The firm did not perform procedures to test this revenue beyond obtaining invoices bank statements purchase orders and/or contracts. (AS 2501.07)

The issuer entered into revenue arrangements with multiple elements and asserted that it allocated the total consideration from these arrangements between the different types of revenue based on the standalone selling prices. The following deficiencies were identified: · The issuer recognized one type of revenue over time based on costs incurred to date relative to total estimated costs to complete the contract. The firm did not perform procedures to test the related contract receivables and liabilities. (AS 2501.07)

The issuer entered into revenue arrangements with multiple elements and asserted that it allocated the total consideration from these arrangements between the different types of revenue based on the standalone selling prices. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to test the allowance for doubtful accounts. (AS 2501.07)

The issuer recorded revenue net of customer sales incentives and returns. The following deficiencies were identified with respect to one business unit: · The firm's approach to substantively test the issuer's sales return reserve was to develop an independent expectation of the estimate. The firm did not perform procedures to demonstrate it had a reasonable basis for the method used to develop its independent expectation. (AS 2501.22)

For a second business unit the firm's approach to substantively test the issuer's sales incentive and sales return reserves was to examine transactions that occurred after year end. The firm did not evaluate whether the audit evidence obtained was sufficient including whether the evidence supported or contradicted these estimates. (AS 2501.28)

The issuer recorded revenue net of customer rebates and chargebacks. The issuer estimated its accrued rebates and chargebacks using significant assumptions that were based in part on forecasts of expected future sales rebates and chargebacks. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm's approach for substantively testing accrued rebates and chargebacks was to test the issuer's process. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumptions used to develop these accruals because the firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of the underlying forecasts. (AS 2501.16)

The firm's approach for substantively testing revenue and related accounts was to review and test management's process. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the assumptions used by the issuer to estimate revenue and related accounts because its procedures were limited to reading the memorandum prepared by the issuer and comparing certain assumptions to those used by the issuer in the previous year. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer recognized revenue from different sources. For one source of revenue the following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to test an estimate related to revenue. (AS 2501.07)

The firm did not perform any procedures to test the issuer's conclusion not to record an allowance for doubtful accounts. (AS 2501.07)

The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of the allowance for doubtful accounts because its procedures were limited to testing the subsequent collection of certain accounts receivable without obtaining an understanding of how the issuer developed the allowance and evaluating whether the allowance was reasonable. (AS 2501.09 .10 and .13)

The firm did not perform procedures to test the issuer's estimates of variable consideration that it expects to ultimately include in the transaction price beyond testing the amounts the issuer invoiced to its customers during the year. (AS 2501.07)

The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether the method used by the issuer to develop this other estimate was (1) in conformity with the requirements of the applicable financial reporting framework and (2) appropriate for the nature of the related account taking into account its understanding of the issuer and its environment. (AS 2501.10)

The firm's approach for substantively testing certain significant assumptions related to this other estimate was to develop an expectation using model analyses and information provided by an auditor-employed specialist for comparison to the issuer's significant assumptions. The firm did not demonstrate that it had a reasonable basis for its expectation of the significant assumptions because it did not evaluate the relevance and reliability of certain external data obtained and used by the auditor-employed specialist in developing its expectations. (AS 1105.04 and .06; AS 2501.16)

The firm's approach for substantively testing certain significant assumptions related to this other estimate was to develop an expectation using model analyses and information provided by an auditor-employed specialist for comparison to the issuer's significant assumptions. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the work of the auditor-employed specialist and identify that the auditor-employed specialist's work did not provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because it did not perform procedures to address limitations set forth by the auditor-employed specialist. (AS 1201.C6 and .C7)

The firm did not sufficiently test the issuer's allowance for doubtful accounts because it limited its procedures to calculating the (1) allowance for doubtful accounts as a percentage of total accounts receivable and (2) percentage of accounts receivable in each aging bucket. (AS 2501.07)

The issuer recognizes multiple types of revenue. For one type of revenue and the related accounts which were measured based on estimates the following deficiency was identified: • The firm selected a sample of transactions to test the measurement of this revenue. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate whether data was appropriately used and significant assumptions were appropriately applied in measuring this revenue because it did not compare the amount of revenue it calculated for the selected transactions to the amount of revenue recorded by the issuer. (AS 2501.10)

The issuer recognizes multiple types of revenue. For one type of revenue and the related accounts which were measured based on estimates the following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions that the issuer used to estimate this type of revenue. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer recognizes multiple types of revenue. For one type of revenue and the related accounts which were measured based on estimates the following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of another significant assumption that the issuer used to estimate a related account. (AS 2501.16)

For a second type of revenue the following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of a significant assumption the issuer used to measure this revenue. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer had multiple subsidiaries. During the year the issuer entered into a certain type of transaction through one of its subsidiaries. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of certain information it used as audit evidence including taking into account the issuer's circumstances and other relevant conditions. (AS 1105.04 and .06; AS 2501.29)