Schechter Dokken Kanter Andrews & Selcer Ltd.

United States · Triennially Inspected

Inspection year: 2024
Report date: 26-Jun-2025
PCAOB release: 104-2025-115
Audits reviewed: 1
Audits w/ Part I.A deficiencies: 1
Part I.A deficiency rate: 100%
Part I.A deficiencies: 21
Part I.B deficiencies: 9
Report: View PDF ↗

Deficiencies (21)

Grouped by issuer and in the same order as the PCAOB report, so each item ties back directly to the source.

Issuer A21 deficiencies

#	Area	Deficiency	Standard	Flags
1	Revenue	The issuer used multiple point-of-sale (POS) applications to initiate and process revenue transactions. The firm selected for testing two controls related to the automated calculation of sales discounts and the review of those discounts by designated individuals with certain access levels. For two of the POS applications the firm did not perform any procedures to test these controls. (AS 2201.42 and .44) Both financial statement and ICFR audits	AS 2201.42; AS 2201.44
2	Revenue	The issuer used multiple point-of-sale (POS) applications to initiate and process revenue transactions. The firm selected for testing two controls related to the automated calculation of sales discounts and the review of those discounts by designated individuals with certain access levels. For the other POS applications the firm did not: · perform any procedures to test that the access to change the configuration was appropriately restricted; · identify and test the controls for all of the discount types that were applied to the issuer's sales transactions; and · perform sufficient procedures to determine that certain of the designated access levels were the only designations that allowed for approval of sales discounts because the procedures were limited to testing one level of access. (AS 2201.42 and .44) Both financial statement and ICFR audits	AS 2201.42; AS 2201.44
3	Revenue	The issuer used multiple point-of-sale (POS) applications to initiate and process revenue transactions. The firm selected for testing two controls related to the automated calculation of sales discounts and the review of those discounts by designated individuals with certain access levels. For restaurant sales the following deficiency was identified: · The firm performed certain dual-purpose testing for its substantive testing and its testing of the operating effectiveness of certain related controls: - The firm did not achieve the objectives of both the test of controls and the substantive test because the sampling unit and attributes tested were not the same. (AS 2301.47) Both financial statement and ICFR audits	AS 2301.47
4	Revenue	The issuer used multiple point-of-sale (POS) applications to initiate and process revenue transactions. The firm selected for testing two controls related to the automated calculation of sales discounts and the review of those discounts by designated individuals with certain access levels. For restaurant sales the following deficiency was identified: · The firm performed certain dual-purpose testing for its substantive testing and its testing of the operating effectiveness of certain related controls: - 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) Both financial statement and ICFR audits	AS 2315.16; AS 2315.19; AS 2315.23; AS 2315.44; AS 2315.23A
5	Revenue	The issuer used multiple point-of-sale (POS) applications to initiate and process revenue transactions. The firm selected for testing two controls related to the automated calculation of sales discounts and the review of those discounts by designated individuals with certain access levels. For restaurant sales the following deficiency was identified: • The firm selected a sample of restaurant sales transactions to perform a test of details; however the firm did not perform any procedures to test revenue recognition for certain of the sampled items. (AS 2301.08 and .13) Both financial statement and ICFR audits	AS 2301.8; AS 2301.13
6	Revenue	The issuer used multiple point-of-sale (POS) applications to initiate and process revenue transactions. The firm selected for testing two controls related to the automated calculation of sales discounts and the review of those discounts by designated individuals with certain access levels. For restaurant sales the following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not perform procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the lists and reports it used in selecting its samples and in performing its testing of restaurant sales. (AS 1105.10) Both financial statement and ICFR audits	AS 1105.10
7	Revenue	The issuer used multiple point-of-sale (POS) applications to initiate and process revenue transactions. The firm selected for testing two controls related to the automated calculation of sales discounts and the review of those discounts by designated individuals with certain access levels. The firm's primary substantive procedures to test franchise royalty revenue were analytical procedures. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not perform procedures to determine whether certain assumptions it used in developing its expectation for revenue were based on predictable relationships. (AS 2305.13 and .14) Both financial statement and ICFR audits	AS 2305.13; AS 2305.14
8	Revenue	The issuer used multiple point-of-sale (POS) applications to initiate and process revenue transactions. The firm selected for testing two controls related to the automated calculation of sales discounts and the review of those discounts by designated individuals with certain access levels. The firm's primary substantive procedures to test franchise royalty revenue were analytical procedures. The following deficiency was identified: • The expectation the firm used was not sufficiently precise in identifying material misstatements because the firm did not sufficiently disaggregate the data it used in its procedure to address important factors such as the number of franchisees and differences between franchisee sales and company-owned sales. (AS 2305.17) Both financial statement and ICFR audits	AS 2305.17
9	Revenue	The issuer used multiple point-of-sale (POS) applications to initiate and process revenue transactions. The firm selected for testing two controls related to the automated calculation of sales discounts and the review of those discounts by designated individuals with certain access levels. The firm did not identify and evaluate a departure from GAAP related to the issuer's omission of certain disclosures required by FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2810.30 and 31) Both financial statement and ICFR audits	AS 2810.30; AS 2810.31
10	Accounts Receivable	The firm did not identify and test any controls over the issuer's accounts receivable. (AS 2201.39) Both financial statement and ICFR audits	AS 2201.39
11	Business Combinations	During the year the issuer completed a business combination and engaged multiple specialists to determine the fair value of certain acquired assets including acquired intangible assets and certain assumed liabilities. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm selected for testing a control over the issuer's review of the fair value analyses associated with the acquired assets and assumed liabilities. For the control selected the firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to assess the reasonableness of the assumptions. (AS 2201.42 and .44) Both financial statement and ICFR audits	AS 2201.42; AS 2201.44	Significant risk
12	Business Combinations	During the year the issuer completed a business combination and engaged multiple specialists to determine the fair value of certain acquired assets including acquired intangible assets and certain assumed liabilities. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not identify and test any controls over the prospective financial information developed by the issuer and used by the company's specialist to determine the fair value of certain intangible assets acquired. (AS 2201.39) Both financial statement and ICFR audits	AS 2201.39	Significant risk
13	Business Combinations	During the year the issuer completed a business combination and engaged multiple specialists to determine the fair value of certain acquired assets including acquired intangible assets and certain assumed liabilities. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not perform any procedures to test the existence of the fixed assets acquired. (AS 2301.08 and .11) Both financial statement and ICFR audits	AS 2301.8; AS 2301.11	Significant risk
14	Business Combinations	During the year the issuer completed a business combination and engaged multiple specialists to determine the fair value of certain acquired assets including acquired intangible assets and certain assumed liabilities. The following deficiency was identified: • For the valuation of fixed assets the firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate whether the methods used by the company's specialist were appropriate. Specifically the firm did not evaluate whether the data and significant assumptions were appropriately applied under the applicable reporting framework. (AS 1105.A8c) Both financial statement and ICFR audits	AS 1105.A8c	Significant risk
15	Business Combinations	During the year the issuer completed a business combination and engaged multiple specialists to determine the fair value of certain acquired assets including acquired intangible assets and certain assumed liabilities. The following deficiency was identified: • For the valuation of certain intangible assets the firm did not perform procedures to test the financial projections including taking into account the issuer's intent and ability to carry out the projections used in determining the fair values beyond tracing the projections for certain years to issuer-prepared schedules or comparing them to certain historical financial statements. (AS 1105.A8b; AS 2501.16 and .17) Both financial statement and ICFR audits	AS 1105.A8b; AS 2501.16; AS 2501.17	Significant risk
16	Business Combinations	During the year the issuer completed a business combination and engaged multiple specialists to determine the fair value of certain acquired assets including acquired intangible assets and certain assumed liabilities. The following deficiency was identified: • The company's specialists used certain external data in developing the assumptions used in the valuation of certain acquired intangible assets. The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of the data used. (AS 1105.A8a) Both financial statement and ICFR audits	AS 1105.A8a	Significant risk
17	Business Combinations	During the year the issuer completed a business combination and engaged multiple specialists to determine the fair value of certain acquired assets including acquired intangible assets and certain assumed liabilities. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions used by the company's specialists in the valuation of certain acquired assets and assumed liabilities. (AS 1105.A8b) Both financial statement and ICFR audits	AS 1105.A8b	Significant risk
18	Business Combinations	During the year the issuer completed a business combination and engaged multiple specialists to determine the fair value of certain acquired assets including acquired intangible assets and certain assumed liabilities. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain other significant assumptions developed by the company's specialists in the valuation of certain acquired assets and assumed liabilities because its procedures were limited to comparing the assumption to either (1) external data (without evaluating the relevance and reliability of the data as noted above) (2) the same assumption used to value another acquired asset or (3) issuer-prepared schedules. (AS 1105.A8b) Both financial statement and ICFR audits	AS 1105.A8b	Significant risk
19	Business Combinations	During the year the issuer completed a business combination and engaged multiple specialists to determine the fair value of certain acquired assets including acquired intangible assets and certain assumed liabilities. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of certain data the firm used to evaluate the reasonableness of certain components of another significant assumption developed by the company's specialist in its valuation of certain acquired assets. (AS 1105.04 and .06) Both financial statement and ICFR audits	AS 1105.4; AS 1105.6	Significant risk
20	Business Combinations	During the year the issuer completed a business combination and engaged multiple specialists to determine the fair value of certain acquired assets including acquired intangible assets and certain assumed liabilities. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of one of the company's specialists' work related to certain assumed liabilities because it did not evaluate the restriction the specialist placed on the intended users of the report and perform additional procedures to address the matter. (AS 1105.A9 and .A10) Both financial statement and ICFR audits	AS 1105.A10; AS 1105.A9	Significant risk
21	Business Combinations	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 805 Business Combinations. (AS 2810.30 and 31) Both financial statement and ICFR audits	AS 2810.30; AS 2810.31	Significant risk