Explorer

The firm's substantive procedures to test three of these types of revenue included analytical procedures. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not determine whether the expectations for the three types of revenue used in these analytical procedures were based on predictable relationships. (AS 2305.13 and .14)

The firm's substantive procedures to test three of these types of revenue included analytical procedures. The following deficiencies were identified: · The threshold that the firm established to investigate differences for two types of revenue was too high to identify misstatements that could be material either individually or in the aggregate. (AS 2305.20)

The firm's substantive procedures to test three of these types of revenue included analytical procedures. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm identified a difference in excess of the firm's established threshold for the third type of revenue but did not evaluate this difference beyond inquiry of management. (AS 2305.21)

The firm's substantive procedures to test three of these types of revenue included analytical procedures. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm used issuer-produced information to develop its expectation of one of these types of revenue but did not test or in the alternative test any controls over the accuracy of this information. (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 certain permanent and temporary differences used in calculating the income tax provision beyond vouching these amounts to issuer-prepared schedules. (AS 2301.08 and.11)

The issuer used a service organization to initiate and process transactions related to certain assets and identified relevant user controls. The firm did not identify and test a complementary user control over the valuation of these assets or identify and test any other controls that addressed the valuation of these assets. (AS 2201.39 and .B22)

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 performed cycle counts of inventory at one of its locations. The firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures to test this inventory because the firm did not test the sampling methodology and selection parameters used by the issuer or perform other procedures to evaluate whether the issuer's cycle-count procedures were sufficiently reliable to produce results substantially the same as those that would have been obtained by a count of all items each year. (AS 2510.11)

The firm did not perform any procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain data and reports used in its substantive testing of inventory. (AS 1105.10)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the issuer's inventory reserve was to test the issuer's process. The firm did not perform any procedures beyond reading an issuer-prepared memorandum and inquiring of management to evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumptions the issuer used to determine this reserve. (AS 2501.16)

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 engaged an external party to perform its testing of controls. The firm used the work of the external party as evidence of the effectiveness of controls over equity. Because the firm identified a significant risk associated with an equity transaction that the issuer entered into during the year the firm's use of the work of the external party without performing its own work did not provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence that these controls were designed and operating effectively. Further the firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the quality and effectiveness of the external party's work. (AS 2201.19; AS 2605.20 .21 and .24)

The issuer presented its financial statements in a condensed format. The firm did not identify and appropriately address that the financial statements because they were condensed did not present fairly in all material respects the issuer's financial position the results of its operations and its cash flows in conformity with GAAP. (AS 2810.30 and .31) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated the presentation of its financial statements and concluded that its financial statements should not have been presented in a condensed format. The issuer subsequently presented its financial statements in a non-condensed format in a restatement and the firm issued an audit report on the issuer's restated financial statements. Our procedures did not include review of any additional audit work related to the restatement.

During the year the issuer reported a significant transaction. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not perform procedures to test the fair value of certain aspects of this transaction. (AS 2501.07)

During the year the issuer reported a significant transaction. The following deficiency was identified: • The issuer engaged an external specialist to determine the fair value of another aspect of this transaction. The firm did not perform procedures to test that fair value beyond obtaining and reading the valuation reports prepared by the company specialist. Further the firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the work of the company specialist. (AS 1105.A6 - .A10; AS 2501.07)

During the year the issuer reported a significant transaction. The following deficiency was identified: • The issuer engaged an external specialist to determine the fair value of another aspect of this transaction. The firm did not perform procedures to test that fair value beyond obtaining and reading the valuation reports prepared by the company specialist. Further the firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the work of the company specialist. (AS 1105.A6 - .A10; AS 2501.07)

During the year the issuer reported a significant transaction. The following deficiency was identified: • The issuer engaged an external specialist to determine the fair value of another aspect of this transaction. The firm did not perform procedures to test that fair value beyond obtaining and reading the valuation reports prepared by the company specialist. Further the firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the work of the company specialist. (AS 1105.A6 - .A10; AS 2501.07)

During the year the issuer reported a significant transaction. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not perform procedures to test the existence and completeness of certain aspects of this transaction. (AS 2301.08)

During the year the issuer reported a significant transaction. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not identify and evaluate GAAP departures related to the issuer's omission of and inaccurate disclosures related to this significant transaction. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

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 any substantive procedures to evaluate the classification of deferred revenue as current or non-current. (AS 2301.08)

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 identify and evaluate GAAP departures related to the issuer's omission of disclosures related to revenue and deferred revenue that are required by FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm did not consider the characteristics of potentially fraudulent journal entries when identifying and selecting entries for testing. (AS 2401.61)

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

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate how the issuer tested its intangible assets for potential impairment as events or changes in circumstances existed that indicated that the carrying amount of the intangible assets may not be recoverable. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not consider the characteristics of potentially fraudulent journal entries when identifying and selecting entries for testing. (AS 2401.61)

For certain other revenue and the related deferred revenue the following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not evaluate whether the issuer was acting as a principal or as an agent for this revenue. (AS 2301.08)

For certain other revenue and the related deferred revenue the following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not perform procedures to test a revenue transaction it selected for testing beyond performing procedures on the related cost of goods sold. (AS 2301.08)

For certain other revenue and the related deferred revenue the following deficiency was identified: • During the year for another transaction the issuer recognized certain revenue that had been previously deferred. The firm did not perform procedures beyond a certain recalculation to test the appropriateness of the recognition of this revenue in the current year and the continued deferral of the remaining revenue for this transaction. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer reported stock-based compensation issued to related parties. The firm did not perform procedures to test this compensation beyond obtaining certain issuer-produced calculations. (AS 2410.12)

The issuer reported stock-based compensation issued to related parties. The firm did not identify and evaluate GAAP departures related to the issuer's omission of disclosures related to this compensation that are required by FASB ASC Topic 718 Compensation—Stock Compensation. (AS 2410.17; AS 2810.30 and .31)

The issuer reported a related party note receivable and related party loans payable. The firm did not identify and evaluate GAAP departures related to the issuer's omission of disclosures related to this receivable and payable that are required by FASB ASC Topic 825 Financial Instruments and FASB ASC Topic 860 Transfers and Servicing. (AS 2410.17; AS 2810.30 and .31)

During the year the issuer reported a significant transaction. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not perform procedures to test whether the issuer appropriately accounted for certain aspects of this transaction. (AS 2301.08)

During the year the issuer completed an analysis to evaluate long-lived assets for recoverability because it identified events and changes in circumstances that indicated that the carrying amount may not be recoverable. The firm did not evaluate beyond inquiry and reading the issuer's analysis how this qualitative analysis supported the recoverability of the assets. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform procedures to test the completeness of accruals and other liabilities and expenses beyond reviewing an issuer prepared report of balance sheet transactions that occurred subsequent to the issuer's year end for unusual transactions. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform any procedures to identify and select journal entries and other adjustments for testing. (AS 2401.58)

The sample size the firm used in its substantive procedures to test valuation of investments was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because the firm did not take into account appropriate factors such as tolerable misstatement for the population and the characteristics of the population in determining the sample size. (AS 2315.16 .23 and 23A)

The issuer calculated the qualitative component of the allowance for loan losses by applying basis points to each qualitative factor. The firm's approach for substantively testing the qualitative component was to test the issuer's process. The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of significant assumptions used by the issuer to develop this component. (AS 2501.16)

The firm tested the design and operating effectiveness of information technology general controls ('ITGCs') over the issuer's general ledger and other systems ('applications') in order to rely on the accuracy and completeness of data produced by the applications that was used in performing the firm's substantive testing of long-lived assets depreciation and amortization and revenue. The firm selected for testing ITGCs over logical access including privileged access. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not sufficiently test privileged access controls for two applications because the firm did not establish that all users with privileged access were included in the population used for the testing. In addition the firm did not test the operating effectiveness of logical access controls including privileged access for the remaining applications. (AS 2301.19 and .21)

The firm did not identify and evaluate the significance of a departure from applicable accounting standards related to the use of certain assumptions by the issuer to develop certain inputs used to calculate depreciation and amortization. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm did not test the accuracy and completeness of estimated operating and other costs that the issuer provided to issuer-engaged specialists for their use in developing certain inputs which were used in the depreciation and amortization calculations. (AS 1210.12)

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)