Explorer

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 two types of revenue the firm selected a sample of transactions for testing. The sample sizes the firm used in these substantive procedures were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because the firm did not take into account the relevant factors in determining its sample sizes including tolerable misstatement for the population the allowable risk of incorrect acceptance and the characteristics of the population. (AS 2315.16 .19 .23 and .23A)

The sample sizes the firm used in its substantive procedures to test certain revenue and related accounts 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 sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test revenue and related accounts at this business unit 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)

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's sample sizes to test costs incurred and billings to customers were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because in determining the sample sizes the firm did not take into account tolerable misstatement the allowable risk of incorrect acceptance and the characteristics of the population. (AS 2315.16 .23 and .23A)

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

The firm designed a substantive procedure for testing four types of revenue as a dual-purpose test. The firm performed its substantive procedure using the sample size it determined for its control testing. For the selected revenue transactions the firm did not perform procedures to test whether the issuer satisfied its performance obligations prior to the recognition of revenue beyond obtaining certain issuer-produced reports and testing the timing of cash receipts. (AS 2301.08 and .11)

The issuer used multiple information technology (IT) systems to initiate process and record transactions related to revenue and related accounts and recognized revenue as the respective performance obligations were satisfied. The following deficiency was identified: The sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test 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 sample size the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test 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 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's testing of an aspect of these controls that addressed whether these sales incentives were appropriately recorded in the general ledger was not sufficient because the number of items the firm selected for testing did not provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence given the frequency with which the controls operated. (AS 2201.46) 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.

The firm performed substantive procedures to test the accuracy of certain issuer-produced data the firm used in its testing of the sales incentive liability. The sample sizes the firm used in certain of these substantive procedures were smaller than the ones the firm determined necessary to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence. Further the firm did not perform any procedures to test or test any controls over the completeness of these data. (AS 1105.10)

The firm designed certain of its substantive procedures to test certain revenue as dual-purpose tests. 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 for the substantive procedure because the firm did not use the larger of the sample sizes that would otherwise have been designed for the two separate purposes. (AS 2315.44)

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

The issuer recognized revenue as services were provided and accrued revenue and recorded accounts receivable for services provided but not yet billed. The firm identified an elevated inherent risk related to certain revenue that was recognized over time. The following deficiency was identified: · The sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test revenue and accounts receivable 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 sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test revenue and accounts receivable 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 Revenue and Related Accounts to test certain revenue the firm selected sales transactions for testing. The number of transactions the firm used in its substantive procedures to test revenue was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because it used a proprietary accept/reject methodology that did not consider factors relevant to determining sample size for substantive testing. (AS 2301.37 and .42; AS 2315.16 .19 .23 and .23A)

With respect to the firm's substantive testing: · The sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test 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 sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test revenue and related accounts 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 issuer used certain systems to process sales transactions and compute and record revenue and receivables. The sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test revenue and receivables 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 deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)