Explorer

The issuer reported revenue from different types of services. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate whether each type of service represented a separate performance obligation. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform substantive procedures to test revenue in excess of billings beyond comparing the balance to the subsidiary ledger. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform substantive procedures to test certain revenue beyond comparing it to the issuer's information system. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not perform substantive procedures to test a second type of revenue beyond obtaining evidence that the issuer received cash for certain transactions. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

For a third type of revenue the firm selected certain revenue transactions for testing. The firm did not perform substantive procedures to test those revenue transactions beyond obtaining evidence that the issuer received cash for the transactions. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test certain receivables related to revenue. (AS 2301.08)

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

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test liabilities related to revenue. (AS 2301.08) Unrelated to our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for the allowance for doubtful accounts certain receivables related to revenue and liabilities related to revenue and concluded that material misstatements existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently corrected these misstatements in a restatement of its financial statements.

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

The firm did not perform procedures to test a related liability account beyond obtaining a schedule of activity for the account for the year. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate whether the issuer should have disclosed disaggregated revenue in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 606. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform procedures to test revenue and accounts receivable beyond obtaining issuer-produced reports and reports from external sources. (AS 2301.08)

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 evaluate whether the issuer appropriately (1) identified the performance obligations for these arrangements; (2) determined the standalone selling prices; and (3) allocated the transaction price to each separate performance obligation based on the standalone selling price. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

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: · For one of the above two types of revenue the firm did not perform procedures to evaluate whether the issuer met its performance obligations prior to recognizing revenue beyond obtaining invoices contracts and/or cash receipts. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

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: · To test a fourth type of revenue the firm selected a sample of transactions from one month. The firm did not perform any procedures to test the remaining population of revenue transactions. (AS 2315.24)

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 procedures to test the disclosures related to revenue beyond comparing total revenues in the disclosures to the statement of operations. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

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 procedures beyond obtaining the subledgers to test accounts receivable and customer deposits. (AS 2301.08)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit reviewed the Revenue and Related Accounts area and also identified the deficiencies below. The firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures to evaluate whether certain of this revenue was appropriately recognized because the firm only reviewed one customer change order. (AS 2301.08)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit reviewed the Revenue and Related Accounts area and also identified the deficiencies below. For the unbilled portion of this revenue the following additional deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to test the completeness of this revenue. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer used service organizations to process and/or record transactions for revenue and related accounts and the firm used certain information including delivery information produced by these service organizations in its substantive testing of these accounts. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to test the accuracy and/or completeness of certain of this information. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer used service organizations to process and/or record transactions for revenue and related accounts and the firm used certain information including delivery information produced by these service organizations in its substantive testing of these accounts. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue included selecting a sample of revenue transactions. For certain selections the firm did not perform substantive procedures to test this delivery information beyond comparing the information to another report from the service organization. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

For certain contracts the issuer recognized revenue over time based on costs incurred to date relative to total estimated costs to complete. The firm's substantive procedures to test this revenue and the related accounts included (1) selecting a sample of contracts that exceeded a monetary threshold (2) selecting a sample of costs incurred and billings to customers during the year and (3) performing analytical procedures. The following deficiencies were identified: · For certain contracts selected for testing the firm did not perform procedures to test whether the performance obligations had been satisfied before revenue was recognized beyond comparisons to issuer-produced reports and invoices. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

For certain contracts the issuer recognized revenue over time based on costs incurred to date relative to total estimated costs to complete. The firm's substantive procedures to test this revenue and the related accounts included (1) selecting a sample of contracts that exceeded a monetary threshold (2) selecting a sample of costs incurred and billings to customers during the year and (3) performing analytical procedures. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm used certain labor rates in its substantive testing of costs incurred but did not perform procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy of these labor rates. (AS 1105.10)

For certain contracts the issuer recognized revenue over time based on costs incurred to date relative to total estimated costs to complete. The firm's substantive procedures to test this revenue and the related accounts included (1) selecting a sample of contracts that exceeded a monetary threshold (2) selecting a sample of costs incurred and billings to customers during the year and (3) performing analytical procedures. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform substantive procedures to test the occurrence of revenue or the existence of contract assets for contracts below the monetary threshold beyond performing the procedures to test a sample of costs incurred and billings to customers discussed above. (AS 1105.27; AS 2301.08 and .13)

For certain contracts the issuer recognized revenue over time based on costs incurred to date relative to total estimated costs to complete. The firm's substantive procedures to test this revenue and the related accounts included (1) selecting a sample of contracts that exceeded a monetary threshold (2) selecting a sample of costs incurred and billings to customers during the year and (3) performing analytical procedures. The following deficiencies were identified: · For the analytical procedures over certain revenue the firm developed its expectations in part using data derived from the recorded amounts of revenue. The firm did not evaluate whether these data were sufficiently relevant and reliable for the purpose of achieving its audit objectives. (AS 1105.04 and .06; AS 2305.16)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test a fifth type of revenue. (AS 2301.08 and .11)

The firm did not perform substantive procedures to test the deferred revenue at year end. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform procedures to test a revenue-related account beyond (1) comparing the account balance at the end of the current year to the account balance at the end of the prior year (2) testing the clerical accuracy of a report the issuer used to calculate the account balance (3) recalculating the account balance using the same information that the issuer used to calculate the balance and (4) reconciling the account balance to the general ledger. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer offered various forms of sales incentives to customers that were recorded as deductions from revenue with a corresponding liability for sales incentives. The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the issuer's review and approval of these sales incentives. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to test or test any controls over the completeness of the population of items from which it selected its samples for testing these controls. (AS 1105.10) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its controls over certain of these sales incentives and concluded that a material weakness existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently reflected this material weakness in a revision to its report on ICFR and the firm revised its opinion on the effectiveness of the issuer's ICFR to express an adverse opinion and reissued its report.

With respect to two types of revenue the following deficiencies were identified: · For the first type of revenue the firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test whether the performance obligation was satisfied before revenue was recognized. (AS 2301.08)

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 evaluate the relevance and reliability of external information it used to test revenue and accounts receivable. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

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 evaluate whether the issuer was acting as either a principal or agent for certain revenue. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer recognized revenue from different sources. For one source of revenue the following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the allowance for doubtful accounts. (AS 2501.07)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to examine material adjustments the issuer made to both sources of revenue during the course of preparing the financial statements. (AS 2301.41)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed the Revenue and Related Accounts area and also identified certain of the deficiencies below. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test deferred revenue. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer disclosed that it recognized revenue in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. For certain revenue transactions the firm did not (1) take into account certain contradictory audit evidence and (2) perform procedures to evaluate whether (a) performance obligations were appropriately identified (b) the determination of transaction prices was appropriate (c) the issuer was acting as either a principal or agent for goods or services and (d) it was appropriate to recognize revenue at a point in time or over time. (AS 2301.08 and .13; AS 2810.03)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test a portion of a revenue related account. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer disclosed that it recognized revenue from contracts with multiple customers in compliance with FASB ASC Topic 605 Revenue Recognition. The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue included testing certain transactions and customer contracts. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform substantive procedures to test selected transactions beyond obtaining the related invoice from the issuer. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer disclosed that it recognized revenue from contracts with multiple customers in compliance with FASB ASC Topic 605 Revenue Recognition. The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue included testing certain transactions and customer contracts. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test revenue cut-off. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not test the accuracy of the accounts receivable aging report that was used in testing the subsequent collection of certain accounts receivable. (AS 1105.10)

The firm used certain data derived from the issuer's system in its substantive testing of revenue and related accounts. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test or in the alternative identify and test any controls over the completeness and/or accuracy of this data. (AS 1105.10)

For revenue from certain services the firm's testing of revenue consisted primarily of vouching cash receipts. The firm however did not evaluate whether revenue was appropriately recognized under FASB IFRS 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2301.08; AS 2810.30)

The issuer had a contract dispute with a vendor who provided certain services to the issuer's customers on behalf of the issuer. The firm did not perform procedures to (1) understand and evaluate the nature of the dispute and (2) obtain evidence to support the issuer's conclusion on recognizing revenue based on its assessment that the vendor continued to provide the underlying service to the issuer's customers even though the issuer had stopped paying the vendor for such services due to the dispute. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer recognized revenue from certain contracts related to the development and sale of real estate. In conjunction with these contracts the issuer received deposits from customers that were recorded as deferred revenue. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate the appropriateness of the issuer's classification of deferred revenue associated with these contracts as a current liability. (AS 2301.08)

With respect to Revenue and Related Accounts to test certain revenue the firm selected sales transactions for testing. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test this revenue because its procedures were limited to (1) verifying that contracts were approved and (2) reading the issuer's technical accounting memorandums regarding the implementation of ASC Topic 606 for certain contracts that were entered into in years prior to the year under audit. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not evaluate the appropriateness of the issuer's presentation of certain accounts related to revenue. (AS 2301.08 and .11)

With respect to the firm's testing of manual controls: · The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the issuer's reviews of certain contracts. The firm did not perform procedures beyond inquiry to test or test any controls over the completeness of the population of contracts from which it made its selections for testing. (AS 1105.10)

With respect to the firm's substantive testing: · The firm performed tests of details for a sample of certain revenue and related accounts. The firm did not perform any procedures to verify that each of the individual transactions from the respective revenue and related accounts had the opportunity to be selected for testing. (AS 2315.24)

With respect to the firm's substantive testing: · For certain revenue the firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the validity of the inputs used by the issuer to recognize revenue beyond identifying the source of the inputs. Further the firm did not perform procedures to test the prices the issuer used to recognize this revenue beyond testing whether the price charged was below a maximum allowed price. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

With respect to the firm's substantive testing: · For certain other revenue the firm did not test whether revenue was recognized in accordance with relevant contract terms and conditions. (AS 2301.08)