Explorer

The firm's approach for substantively testing a significant estimate was to develop an independent expectation. The firm did not demonstrate that it had a reasonable basis for its independent expectation. (AS 2501.22)

The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue included testing a sample of revenue transactions and performing year-end cut-off procedures. The following deficiencies were identified: - For certain selected transactions the firm did not perform any procedures to test whether performance obligations had been satisfied prior to the recognition of revenue. (AS 2301.08)

The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue included testing a sample of revenue transactions and performing year-end cut-off procedures. The following deficiencies were identified: - For contracts with multiple performance obligations the firm did not perform substantive procedures to test the allocation of the transaction price to each performance obligation beyond comparing the allocation to the payment terms in the contract. (AS 2501.07)

The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue included testing a sample of revenue transactions and performing year-end cut-off procedures. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not perform any procedures to test or in the alternative identify and test any controls over the completeness of the revenue transactions tested in its cut-off procedures. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer entered into a contract with a customer that contained multiple products and services. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not identify and appropriately address a departure from GAAP related to the issuer's omission of a disclosure required by FASB ASC Topic 280 Segment Reporting. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The issuer entered into a contract with a customer that contained multiple products and services. The following deficiencies were identified: - In its testing the firm identified evidence indicating that the issuer may not have had legal title to the products and services it offered under this arrangement. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate this contradictory evidence and the related effect on revenue recognition. (AS 2301.08; AS 2810.03)

The issuer entered into a contract with a customer that contained multiple products and services. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate whether the issuer's conclusion that the products and services sold under this arrangement consisted of a single performance obligation was in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606. (AS 2810.30)

The issuer entered into a contract with a customer that contained multiple products and services. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not perform any substantive procedures beyond inquiry of management to test whether the performance obligation was satisfied prior to the recognition of revenue. (AS 2301.08)

During the year the issuer merged with another company in a business combination. The firm did not evaluate whether the issuer appropriately recognized and measured this merger in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 805 Business Combinations. (AS 2810.30)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the value of a certain asset. (AS 2301.08)

With respect to a certain asset to evaluate the possible impairment of this asset the issuer estimated the fair value of this asset using forecasted cash flows and other assumptions. The firm did not perform any procedures beyond inquiry of management and reviewing the issuer's analysis to test the issuer's fair value measurement. (AS 2502.15)

With respect to a certain asset to evaluate the possible impairment of this asset the issuer estimated the fair value of this asset using forecasted cash flows and other assumptions. The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether events and circumstances continued to support the established useful life for this asset. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer recognized revenue from multiple business units. In determining the extent to which audit procedures over revenue should be performed at certain business units the firm did not evaluate whether (1) specific risks of material misstatement existed at these business units and (2) the risks of material misstatement the firm identified for the business units subject to more extensive audit procedures also applied to these business units such that in combination they presented a reasonable possibility of material misstatement. (AS 2101.11 and .12)

The firm used an external digital confirmation platform to confirm certain cash but did not perform sufficient procedures to support its reliance on this digital platform's ability to maintain control over the confirmation requests and responses because its procedures were limited to obtaining an understanding of only certain aspects of this digital platform. (AS 2310.28)

The firm did not evaluate the relevance of certain evidence it used in its assessment of the recoverability of amounts due from related parties. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The firm did not evaluate the presentation as a current asset of a portion of amounts due from a related party. (AS 2410.17)

The issuer engaged an external specialist to determine the fair value of certain investments. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumptions developed by the issuer or the company's specialist that were used by the company's specialist in determining the fair value for certain investments. (AS 1105.A8b; AS 2501.16)

The issuer engaged an external specialist to determine the fair value of certain investments. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate the relevance and reliability of certain data from sources external to the issuer that the company's specialist used to determine the fair value for certain investments. (AS 1105.A8a)

The issuer engaged an external specialist to determine the fair value of certain investments. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform or arrange to have another auditor perform auditing procedures to an investee's unaudited financial statements that the company's specialist used to determine the fair value of an investment. (AS 1105.B1 and .B3)

The firm used an external digital confirmation platform to confirm certain cash but did not perform any procedures to support its reliance on this digital platform's ability to maintain control over the confirmation requests and responses. (AS 2310.28)

For certain of the issuer's business units the firm did not identify and select journal entries and other adjustments for testing without having an appropriate basis for excluding those business units. (AS 2401.61)

The firm did not evaluate whether the method used by the issuer to recognize estimated revenue was in conformity with certain requirements of FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2501.10)

The firm did not sufficiently evaluate whether the issuer's method to recognize revenue on a gross basis was appropriate because the firm did not evaluate certain indicators of net basis that existed. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not identify and evaluate a departure from GAAP related to the issuer's omission of certain disclosures related to revenue required by FASB ASC Topic 606. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm did not plan and perform an audit that provided a reasonable basis for its audit opinion on the issuer's financial statements because it limited its procedures to establishing a materiality level for the financial statements certain risk assessment procedures confirmation of cash and related party transactions obtaining letters from creditors confirming they would not demand payment until such time when the issuer had sufficient resources to make payment and obtaining certain issuer-prepared schedules. (AS 1101.03; AS 1105.04; AS 2101.08 and .10; AS 2110.04; AS 2301.08; AS 2401.57; AS 2410.03; AS 2415.03; AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm did not plan and perform an audit that provided a reasonable basis for its audit opinion on the issuer's financial statements because its procedures were limited to obtaining certain bank statements agreements and issuer-prepared documents. (AS 1101.03; AS 1105.04; AS 2101.08 and .10; AS 2105.03; AS 2110.04; AS 2301.08; AS 2410.03; AS 2415.03; AS 2805.05; AS 2810.30 and .31) Unrelated to our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for certain significant accounts 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 and the firm revised and reissued its report on the financial statements.

The firm did not plan and perform an audit that provided a reasonable basis for its audit opinion on the issuer's financial statements because its procedures were limited to obtaining certain bank statements an excerpt of an agreement and issuer-prepared documents. (AS 1101.03; AS 1105.04; AS 2101.08 and .10; AS 2105.03; AS 2110.04; AS 2301.08; AS 2410.03; AS 2415.03; AS 2805.05; AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm did not establish an overall audit strategy and develop an audit plan that provided a reasonable basis for its audit opinion on the issuer's financial statements. (AS 2101.08 and .10)

The issuer disclosed that it had no related party transactions or balances. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not identify and evaluate a departure from GAAP related to the issuer's omission of disclosures required by FASB ASC Topic 850 Related Party Disclosures. (AS 2410.17; 2810.30 and .31)

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

The firm did not establish a materiality level for the financial statements as a whole and determine the related amount of tolerable misstatement. (AS 2105.06 and .08)

The firm did not complete all necessary auditing procedures and obtain sufficient evidence to support the representations in the auditor's report. Specifically the firm did not review the work of engagement team members to evaluate whether the (1) work was performed and documented (2) objectives of the procedures were achieved and (3) results of the procedures performed supported the conclusions reached. (AS 1105.04; AS 1201.05)

The firm's work papers did not contain sufficient information to support its opinion or to enable an experienced auditor having no previous connection with the engagement to understand the nature timing extent and results of the procedures performed evidence obtained and conclusions reached. (AS 1105.04; AS 1215.06)

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 identify and evaluate a departure from GAAP related to the issuer's application of FASB ASC Topic 605 which was superseded by FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

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 perform any procedures to test the issuer's conclusion not to record an allowance for doubtful accounts. (AS 2501.07)

The issuer disclosed that it had no related party transactions or balances. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate whether the issuer had properly identified its related parties and relationships and transactions with related parties because the firm did not evaluate information gathered during the audit to determine whether certain entities were related parties. (AS 2410.14)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed this area but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm did not perform any procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain aspects of the data that the firm used in its substantive testing of a significant account. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer recognized revenue from multiple business entities. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not test transaction prices used in recording revenue for one business entity. (AS 2301.08 and .11)

The issuer reported accounts receivables including unbilled receivables for multiple business entities. The firm did not identify and test any controls over accounts receivable for one of the issuer's business entities. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer reported accounts receivables including unbilled receivables for multiple business entities. The firm selected for testing a control over the review of outstanding accounts receivable for another business entity but did not perform any procedures to test the design and operating effectiveness of the control. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer reported accounts receivables including unbilled receivables for multiple business entities. The firm selected for testing a control over the review of delinquent accounts receivable for a third business entity but did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to assess the reasonableness of the reserve for the recorded accounts receivable. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer reported accounts receivables including unbilled receivables for multiple business entities. The firm did not test or test controls over the accuracy and completeness of system-generated reports used in its substantive testing. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer reported accounts receivables including unbilled receivables for multiple business entities. The firm selected for testing a sample of accounts receivable for certain business entities and unbilled receivables for certain other business entities. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures over accounts receivable selected for testing that were not collected or were only partially collected in subsequent periods. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer reported accounts receivables including unbilled receivables for multiple business entities. The firm selected for testing a sample of accounts receivable for certain business entities and unbilled receivables for certain other business entities. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to test whether services had been rendered prior to the issuer's recording of certain unbilled receivables. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer reported accounts receivables including unbilled receivables for multiple business entities. The firm selected for testing a sample of accounts receivable for certain business entities and unbilled receivables for certain other business entities. The following deficiencies were identified: · The sample sizes the firm used in its 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 size including tolerable misstatement for the populations the allowable risk of incorrect acceptance and the characteristics of the populations. (AS 2315.16 .19 .23 and .23A)

The issuer reported accounts receivables including unbilled receivables for multiple business entities. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the valuation of accounts receivable and unbilled receivables because its procedures to test the allowance for doubtful accounts were limited to inquiry of management. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform procedures beyond obtaining a certification from issuer personnel to extend its conclusions regarding the existence of cash on hand from the interim date in which the audit procedures were performed to year end. (AS 2301.45)

The firm did not perform any procedures to test certain other cash held at banking institutions. (AS 2301.08 and .11)