Explorer

The issuer completed an asset acquisition including the purchase of certain intangible assets. The issuer engaged an external specialist to estimate the fair value of the acquired intangible assets. The firm did not determine the likely sources of potential misstatements associated with these acquired intangible assets to identify and test controls that addressed the risks of misstatement for the relevant assertions including controls over the accuracy and completeness of issuer-prepared information provided to the external specialist. (AS 2201.30 and .39)

The issuer completed an asset acquisition including the purchase of certain intangible assets. The issuer engaged an external specialist to estimate the fair value of the acquired intangible assets. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the subsequent valuation of these intangible assets. (AS 2201.39)

The firm's approach for testing the fair value of the intangible assets acquired in the asset acquisition was to review and test management's process. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of cash flow projections the issuer provided to the external specialist. Further the firm did not evaluate contrary evidence related to these projections. (AS 1210.12; AS 2810.03)

The firm's approach for testing the fair value of the intangible assets acquired in the asset acquisition was to review and test management's process. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not test the relevance and reliability of data the external specialist used to develop an assumption. (AS 2502.26 .28 and .31)

The firm's approach for testing the fair value of the intangible assets acquired in the asset acquisition was to review and test management's process. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of an assumption developed by the external specialist. (AS 2502.26 and .28)

The firm's approach for testing the fair value of the intangible assets acquired in the asset acquisition was to review and test management's process. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test or in the alternative test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of issuer-prepared information provided to the external specialist. (AS 1210.12)

The issuer performed a qualitative assessment to determine whether any of the acquired intangible assets were impaired. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate whether the issuer considered certain relevant events or changes in circumstances in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 350 Intangibles —Goodwill and Other including the issuer's recurring operating losses net losses negative cash flows from operations and substantial doubt about the issuer's ability to continue as a going concern when evaluating the issuer's qualitative assessment. (AS 2810.03 and .30)

The firm did not perform procedures to test the accuracy and completeness of data produced from the issuer's payroll system that the firm used to test participant contributions. (AS 1105.10)

The firm used certain data produced by the issuer's benefit plan record keeper in testing participant contributions. The firm did not perform any procedures that addressed the accuracy and completeness of this data. (AS 2301.08)

To test certain revenue the firm selected a sample of items for testing. The following deficiencies were identified: · The sample size the firm used was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because the firm did not take into account the relevant factors in determining the sample size 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)

To test certain revenue the firm selected a sample of items for testing. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm drew its sample from a source that was not necessarily representative of the revenue recorded during the year. (AS 2315.17)

The firm did not perform procedures to test the accuracy of certain data it used to test an adjustment to revenue beyond agreeing the data to the issuer's internal systems. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer engaged specialists to estimate certain portions of a significant account. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to test the accuracy of certain issuer-produced data that the company's specialist used in developing certain individual estimates beyond testing the accuracy of the data in the aggregate. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer engaged specialists to estimate certain portions of a significant account. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of significant assumptions the company's specialist developed and used in developing one of the estimates. (AS 1105.A8b)

The issuer engaged specialists to estimate certain portions of a significant account. The following deficiencies were identified: · For one of the estimates the firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether the methods used by the company's specialist were appropriate under the circumstances taking into account the requirements of the applicable financial reporting framework. (AS 1105.A8c)

The issuer used a specialist to estimate the issuer's oil and gas reserves that were used in the valuation of properties for which oil and gas reserves had been assigned. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions. (AS 1105.A8b; AS 2501.16)

The issuer used a specialist to estimate the issuer's oil and gas reserves that were used in the valuation of properties for which oil and gas reserves had been assigned. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to test the accuracy and completeness of certain data provided by the issuer and used by the company's specialist to develop the estimate. (AS 1105.A8a)

The issuer used a specialist to estimate the issuer's oil and gas reserves that were used in the valuation of properties for which oil and gas reserves had been assigned. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of certain information from sources external to the issuer that the company's specialist used to develop the estimate. (AS 1105.A8a)

The issuer used a specialist to estimate the issuer's oil and gas reserves that were used in the valuation of properties for which oil and gas reserves had been assigned. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate whether certain of the methods used by the company's specialist in the development of the estimates were appropriate under the circumstances. (AS 1105.A8c)

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

The firm did not perform procedures to test the accuracy and completeness of certain disclosures related to operating leases. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer recognized certain revenue from services. For this revenue the firm did not evaluate the probability that the issuer would collect substantially all of the consideration to which it believed it was entitled in conformity with FASB Topic ASC 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2810.30)

The issuer recognized certain revenue from services. The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of the allowance for doubtful accounts for the related receivables. (AS 2501.07)

During the year the issuer acquired certain intangible assets and used an external specialist to determine their fair value. The firm's approach for testing the fair value of these assets was to review and test management's process. The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of the forecasts the issuer provided to the external specialist. (AS 1210.12)

During the year the issuer acquired certain intangible assets and used an external specialist to determine their fair value. The firm's approach for testing the fair value of these assets was to review and test management's process. The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of assumptions the external specialist developed. (AS 2502.26 and .28)

The firm did not evaluate whether the issuer appropriately presented a significant account in conformity with GAAP. (AS 2810.30)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test certain revenue because it did not evaluate whether (i) the agreement was a modification to an existing contract or whether it was appropriate to account for it as a separate contract and (ii) certain payments received from an external party represented consideration payable to a customer. Further the firm did not sufficiently evaluate whether the timing of revenue recognition was appropriate because it did not evaluate certain information that indicated the issuer (i) may not be entitled to any consideration and (ii) had not satisfied the performance obligation. (AS 2301.08 and .13; AS 2810.03)

The issuer engaged an external specialist to assist in the valuation of certain other long-lived assets. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of the company's specialist valuation report and whether the specialist's findings support or contradict the valuation of certain long-lived assets because it did not identify and evaluate that the valuation report was prepared to assess valuation at a date other than year end. (AS 1105.A9)

The firm did not identify and evaluate a departure from GAAP related to the issuer's inaccurate disclosure related to the accounting for and presentation and disclosure of impairment. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The issuer capitalized interest related to certain projects. The firm did not identify and evaluate departures from GAAP related to the issuer's capitalization of interest for one project that was substantially complete and ready for its intended use and for another project for which activities necessary to get the asset ready for its intended use were not in progress in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 835 Interest. (AS 2810.30)

The firm did not perform any procedures to test a significant disclosure. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test certain revenue because the firm did not evaluate (i) whether the sales contracts included multiple performance obligations and (ii) whether revenue was recognized after the point in time at which control was transferred to the customer. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether the issuer's sales contracts met the criteria for application of the practical expedient relating to the remaining performance obligations disclosure. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer held a majority ownership in a limited partnership and reported the valuation of this investment based on investee financial results including audited financial statements that were prepared using different accounting principles. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate whether the issuer's accounting for this investment was appropriate. (AS 2301.08 and .11)

The issuer held a majority ownership in a limited partnership and reported the valuation of this investment based on investee financial results including audited financial statements that were prepared using different accounting principles. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence for the investee's financial statements prepared using different accounting principles because it did not perform procedures to obtain evidence related to significant differences in accounting principles. (AS 1105.B1 and .B2)

The issuer held a majority ownership in a limited partnership and reported the valuation of this investment based on investee financial results including audited financial statements that were prepared using different accounting principles. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and evaluate departures from GAAP related to this investment. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm selected a sample of transactions to test certain other revenue. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the transfer of control for these transactions. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not evaluate the business purpose (or lack thereof) of certain revenue and revenue-related transactions including whether they may have been entered into to engage in fraudulent financial reporting or conceal misappropriation of assets given certain facts regarding the transactions. (AS 2401.67)

The firm did not identify and evaluate a departure from GAAP related to the issuer's incorrect presentation of an asset as a long-lived asset on the balance sheet. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

For certain long-lived assets the firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether the assets were impaired. (AS 2301.08 and .11)

For certain other long-lived assets the firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate whether there were impairment indicators because it limited its procedures to inquiry of management and using market data without evaluating the relevance and reliability of this data. Further the firm did not perform any procedures to address contrary evidence of which it was aware. (AS 2301.08 and .11; AS 1105.04 and .06; AS 2810.03)

The issuer engaged an external specialist to assist in the valuation of certain other long-lived assets. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions developed by the company's specialist. (AS 1105.A8b)

The issuer engaged an external specialist to assist in the valuation of certain other long-lived assets. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of another significant assumption because it limited its procedures to comparing the assumption to various external information. Further the firm did not evaluate the relevance and reliability of the information. (AS 1105.04 .06 and .A8b)

The issuer engaged an external specialist to assist in the valuation of certain other long-lived assets. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not test the accuracy and completeness of the data provided by the issuer to the specialist beyond comparing the data to other issuer provided information. (AS 1105.A8a)

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 perform any procedures to test whether the issuer satisfied its performance obligations prior to the recognition of certain of this revenue. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

For a third type of revenue the firm relied on certain controls to reduce the nature timing and extent of its substantive procedures to test revenue. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not identify and test controls that addressed the completeness and accuracy of revenue transaction details used in the operation of an information-technology automated control selected for testing. (AS 2301.16)

For a third type of revenue the firm relied on certain controls to reduce the nature timing and extent of its substantive procedures to test revenue. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not test or identify and test any controls over the completeness and accuracy of certain system-generated data that was used to develop a significant assumption the issuer used to recognize revenue. (AS 1105.10)

Related to multiple types of revenue the firm did not identify and evaluate the issuer's omission of certain disclosures required by FASB Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The issuer engaged a specialist to perform a quantitative assessment to test the recoverability of certain long-lived assets. The firm did not perform procedures to test the valuation of these long-lived assets beyond obtaining a summary of the company's specialist's valuation memorandum. Further the firm did not perform any procedures with respect to its use of the work of the company's specialist as audit evidence. (AS 1105.A1-.A10; AS 2501.07)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the allowance for doubtful accounts was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate whether the firm had a reasonable basis for the significant assumptions related to the expected credit loss rate the issuer used to estimate its allowance for doubtful accounts. (AS 2501.16)