Explorer

The issuer engaged a specialist to develop an estimate of a significant account. The firm selected a sample to test the accuracy and completeness of certain data used by the company's specialist. The firm did not sufficiently test the accuracy and completeness of this data because it selected its sample from a sub-population of the data. (AS 1105.A8a)

The issuer engaged a specialist to develop an estimate of a significant account. The firm selected a sample to test the accuracy and completeness of certain data used by the company's specialist. The firm did not test the accuracy of certain other data that the company's specialist used to develop a significant assumption. (AS 1105.A8a)

The issuer recorded an inventory reserve and the firm's approach for substantively testing the inventory reserve was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to test or (as discussed above) identify and test controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain issuer-produced information used by the issuer to develop the inventory reserve. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer recorded an inventory reserve and the firm's approach for substantively testing the inventory reserve was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate or (as discussed above) identify and test controls over the relevance and reliability of certain external information that the issuer used to develop the inventory reserve. (AS 1105.04 and.06)

The issuer recorded an inventory reserve and the firm's approach for substantively testing the inventory reserve was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumptions. (AS 2501.16)

The firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures to evaluate whether certain revenue was recognized in conformity with IFRS 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers because it did not evaluate beyond reading the issuer's revenue recognition policy (1) each party's rights regarding the goods or services to be transferred and (2) the payment terms for the goods or services to be transferred. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

To evaluate the reliability of certain external information the firm used to test revenue the firm sent a positive confirmation request to the external party and received an electronic response. The firm did not consider performing procedures to address the risks associated with the electronic response such as verifying the source and contents of the confirmation response. (AS 2310.29)

The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reliability of certain external information it used to test revenue. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The firm's substantive procedures to test this revenue included performing a substantive analytical procedure. The firm used external data in developing its expectation but did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reliability of that data. (AS 2305.16)

The issuer used two information-technology (IT) systems to initiate process and/or record transactions related to certain revenue recognized at various locations. In its testing of controls over this revenue the firm tested two IT-dependent manual controls that used data and reports generated or maintained by these IT systems. The accuracy and completeness of these data and reports depended on effective IT general controls (ITGCs). The firm however did not test the operating effectiveness of the ITGCs over these IT systems. (AS 2201.44)

During the year the issuer identified events indicating that the carrying value of its long-lived assets may not be recoverable and performed an impairment analysis for each project. The firm's approach for testing the impairment of long-lived assets was to test the issuer's process and the firm identified certain of the issuer's locations as “in-scope” locations for purposes of testing long-lived assets for possible impairment. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm used an issuer-prepared report to substantively test long-lived assets for possible impairment but did not perform any procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of this report. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer recognized revenue from contracts that included multiple performance obligations and allocated the total transaction price to the separate performance obligations based on relative standalone selling prices (SSPs). The firm selected a sample of transactions to test revenue. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm used issuer-prepared reports to substantively test revenue but did not perform any procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of these reports. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer recognized revenue from contracts that included multiple performance obligations and allocated the total transaction price to the separate performance obligations based on relative standalone selling prices (SSPs). The firm selected a sample of transactions to test revenue. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the appropriateness of the issuer's (1) determination of transaction price and (2) allocation of the transaction price to each performance obligation because the firm did not evaluate the effect of a sales discount on the transaction price and did not test the SSPs used to allocate revenue to the separate performance obligations. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer recognized revenue from contracts that included multiple performance obligations and allocated the total transaction price to the separate performance obligations based on relative standalone selling prices (SSPs). The firm selected a sample of transactions to test revenue. The following deficiencies were identified: · The issuer recognized certain revenue based on electronic activity. The firm used activity information produced by the issuer to evaluate whether the issuer satisfied its performance obligations related to this revenue but did not perform any procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of this information. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer recognized revenue from contracts that included multiple performance obligations and allocated the total transaction price to the separate performance obligations based on relative standalone selling prices (SSPs). The firm selected a sample of transactions to test revenue. The following deficiencies were identified: · The issuer recognized certain other revenue over the performance period. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test whether the issuer satisfied its performance obligations because the firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of the performance period. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

Payments collected by the issuer were applied to the oldest outstanding accounts receivable balance first. The firm used a system-generated accounts receivable aging report to substantively test the allowance for doubtful accounts but did not perform procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy of the report beyond agreeing a sample of balances from the accounts receivable aging report to the respective billings. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer derives revenue through consolidated VIEs and their subsidiaries and relies on contractual arrangements with the VIEs and their shareholders to control the business operations of the consolidated VIEs. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the issuer's ability to consolidate the VIEs because it did not perform any procedures to evaluate the nature of certain uncertainties disclosed by the issuer regarding (1) the validity of the contractual arrangements with the VIEs and their subsidiaries (2) the structure of the VIEs and (3) its ability to enforce the contractual arrangements and perform additional procedures to address the risks associated with those uncertainties. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not identify and evaluate a departure from GAAP related to the issuer's omission of a disclosure required by FASB ASC Topic 850 Related Party Disclosures. (AS 2410.17; AS 2810.30 and 31)

The issuer recognized revenue from contracts that included multiple performance obligations and allocated the total transaction price to the separate performance obligations based on relative SSPs. The firm's approach for testing the allocation of revenue to the separate performance obligations was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not sufficiently evaluate whether the residual method that the issuer used to allocate the transaction price to the separate performance obligations was in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers because the firm did not evaluate whether the SSPs of certain performance obligations were highly variable. (AS 2501.10)

The issuer recognized revenue from contracts that included multiple performance obligations and allocated the total transaction price to the separate performance obligations based on relative SSPs. The firm's approach for testing the allocation of revenue to the separate performance obligations was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not sufficiently evaluate whether the issuer had a reasonable basis for the SSP of a performance obligation for certain transactions. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer used two information-technology (IT) systems to initiate process and/or record transactions related to certain revenue recognized at various locations. In its testing of controls over this revenue the firm tested two IT-dependent manual controls that used data and reports generated or maintained by these IT systems. The accuracy and completeness of these data and reports depended on effective IT general controls (ITGCs). As a result of the deficiency in the firm's testing of ITGCs the firm's testing of these IT-dependent manual controls was not sufficient. (AS 2201.46)

The issuer derives revenue through a consolidated Variable Interest Entity (VIE) and its subsidiaries and relies on contractual arrangements with the VIE and its shareholders to control the business operations of the consolidated VIE. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the issuer's ability to consolidate the VIE because it did not perform any procedures to evaluate the nature of certain uncertainties disclosed by the issuer regarding (1) the validity of the contractual arrangements with the VIE and its subsidiaries (2) the structure of the VIE and (3) its ability to enforce the contractual arrangements and perform additional procedures to address the risks associated with those uncertainties. (AS 2301.08)

The firm identified certain of the issuer's locations as “in-scope” locations for purposes of testing controls over the revenue. The firm selected for testing certain controls over the processing and recording of the revenue that consisted of the issuer's review and/or approval of (1) the detail sales price list (2) sales price and other information in contracts (3) certain sales reports and (4) changes in estimated contract costs. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the operating effectiveness of these controls because the firm did not test the operating effectiveness of the controls at certain “in-scope” locations which reported a significant amount of the revenue. (AS 2201.44)

The firm identified certain of the issuer's locations as “in-scope” locations for purposes of testing controls over the revenue. The firm selected for testing certain controls over the processing and recording of the revenue that consisted of the issuer's review and/or approval of (1) the detail sales price list (2) sales price and other information in contracts (3) certain sales reports and (4) changes in estimated contract costs. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the lists from which it selected its samples for testing. (AS 1105.10)

The firm identified certain of the issuer's locations as “in-scope” locations for purposes of testing controls over the revenue. The firm selected for testing certain controls over the processing and recording of the revenue that consisted of the issuer's review and/or approval of (1) the detail sales price list (2) sales price and other information in contracts (3) certain sales reports and (4) changes in estimated contract costs. The following deficiencies were identified: · For two of these controls both of which involved the issuer's review of estimated revenue and contract costs the firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to assess the appropriateness of these estimates. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

For certain other revenue the following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control over the processing and recording of this other revenue that consisted of the issuer's review and approval of the revenue distribution. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of a report used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

For certain other revenue the following deficiencies were identified: · The firm used issuer-prepared reports to substantively test this other revenue but did not perform any procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of these reports. (AS 1105.10)

During the year the issuer identified events indicating that the carrying value of its long-lived assets may not be recoverable and performed an impairment analysis for each project. The firm's approach for testing the impairment of long-lived assets was to test the issuer's process and the firm identified certain of the issuer's locations as “in-scope” locations for purposes of testing long-lived assets for possible impairment. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls over the issuer's evaluation of long-lived assets for possible impairment. (AS 2201.39)

During the year the issuer identified events indicating that the carrying value of its long-lived assets may not be recoverable and performed an impairment analysis for each project. The firm's approach for testing the impairment of long-lived assets was to test the issuer's process and the firm identified certain of the issuer's locations as “in-scope” locations for purposes of testing long-lived assets for possible impairment. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the impairment of long-lived assets because the firm did not test such assets for possible impairment at certain “in-scope” locations which held a significant portion of the issuer's long-lived assets. (AS 2301.08)

The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the review of (1) the allowance for doubtful accounts analysis (2) revenue transactions over a monetary threshold that occurred during certain time periods and (3) write-offs. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and/or completeness of system-generated reports that the control owners used in the operation of these controls. (AS 2201.39)

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 firm did not test or test controls over the accuracy and completeness of the system-generated accounts receivable aging report that it used in its substantive testing of the allowance for doubtful accounts. (AS 1105.10; AS 2501.11)

The firm selected transactions to test revenue using a sampling approach that was based on obtaining a certain level of audit evidence from its other substantive procedures. The sample size the firm used was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence over revenue because the firm's other procedures did not provide the level of substantive evidence needed to support its sampling approach. (AS 2315.16 .17 .23 and .23A)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test certain operating expenses. (AS 2301.08)

The firm obtained the issuer's population of journal entries for certain subsidiaries and used it to identify journal entries that met a subset of its fraud criteria. The firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures to test those journal entries because it limited its procedures to one journal entry without having an appropriate rationale for limiting its testing to that journal entry. (AS 2401.61)

The firm obtained the issuer's population of journal entries for certain subsidiaries and used it to identify journal entries that met a subset of its fraud criteria. The firm did not perform procedures to identify journal entries and other adjustments that met its other fraud criteria and test those journal entries and adjustments that met these criteria. (AS 2401.61)

For the subsidiaries not included in the journal entry population described above the firm did not perform any procedures to identify and select journal entries and other adjustments for testing without having an appropriate basis for excluding those subsidiaries. (AS 2401.61)

With respect to Revenue other than the contract for one customer the firm did not perform substantive procedures to test the issuer's contracts with customers to evaluate revenue recognition. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer evaluated the recovery of certain long-lived assets using an undiscounted cash flow model. The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer employed specialists to develop the estimated quantity of mineral reserves. The following deficiency wase identified: •The firm did not test the accuracy and completeness of certain issuer-produced data used by the company's specialists. (AS 1105.A8a)

The issuer employed specialists to develop the estimated quantity of mineral reserves. The following deficiency wase identified: •The firm did not evaluate the relevance and reliability of certain data from external sources used by the company's specialists. (AS 1105.A8a)

The issuer employed specialists to develop the estimated quantity of mineral reserves. The following deficiency wase identified: •The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions developed by the company's specialists or the issuer. (AS 1105.A8b; AS 2501.16)

The issuer employed specialists to develop the estimated quantity of mineral reserves. The following deficiency wase identified: • The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate whether the methods used by the company's specialists were appropriate under the circumstances. (AS 1105.A8c)

The issuer purchased land and buildings (the 'acquired property') and assumed certain legal obligations ('assumed liabilities'). The issuer engaged an external specialist to value the acquired property. The issuer valued the assumed liabilities based on the seller's estimate of costs to satisfy the obligation and certain performance guarantees. The firm did not identify or appropriately address departures from GAAP related to the issuer (1) not allocating certain capitalized costs to the carrying amounts of the related components of the acquired property in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 410 Asset Retirement and Environmental Obligations and (2) inappropriately disclosing all assets of the acquired property within one asset category instead of disclosing balances of major classes of depreciable assets by nature or function in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 360 Property Plant and Equipment. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The issuer identified impairment indicators related to a certain asset. The issuer engaged an external specialist to determine the asset's fair value and also relied upon its sale of the asset through a non-monetary transaction subsequent to year end in concluding that the asset was not impaired. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the issuer's conclusions. The following deficiencies were identified: • The firm did not test the data used by the external specialist to determine the fair value of the asset. (AS 1210.12)

The issuer identified impairment indicators related to a certain asset. The issuer engaged an external specialist to determine the asset's fair value and also relied upon its sale of the asset through a non-monetary transaction subsequent to year end in concluding that the asset was not impaired. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the issuer's conclusions. The following deficiencies were identified: • The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of assumptions used by the external specialist to determine the fair value. (AS 2502.26 and .28)

The issuer identified impairment indicators related to a certain asset. The issuer engaged an external specialist to determine the asset's fair value and also relied upon its sale of the asset through a non-monetary transaction subsequent to year end in concluding that the asset was not impaired. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the issuer's conclusions. The following deficiencies were identified: • The firm did not test the fair value of the subsequent sale of this asset. (AS 2502.26 and .28)

The firm did not evaluate whether the presentation of the asset as a current asset in the issuer's balance sheet was in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 210. (AS 2810.30)

The issuer held certain non-marketable equity investments that were recorded at adjusted cost. For one of these investments the firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the issuer's conclusion that the investment was not impaired because the firm did not (1) test the issuer's qualitative assessment and (2) test the fair value of the issuer's sale of this investment through a non-monetary transaction subsequent to year end which the issuer used to support its conclusion that the investment was not impaired at year end. (AS 2501.07)

For another of these investments the issuer concluded that the investment was not impaired based in part on a private placement transaction earlier in the year. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the issuer's conclusions that the investment was not impaired because the firm did not (1) test the issuer's qualitative assessment; (2) evaluate whether impairment indicators existed because the investee company reported a net loss for the year and its total liabilities exceeded its total assets; and (3) evaluate the value of the investee's shares at year end relative to the private placement transaction earlier in the year. (AS 2301.08)