Ｉｎｓｐｅｃｔｉｏｎ　Ｒｅｐｏｒｔｓ：　Ｅ＆Ｙ

ＰＣＡＯＢによるＥ＆ＹのＩｎｓｐｅｃｔｉｏｎ　Ｒｅｐｏｒｔの最新版が公開されています。
１１の不備が指摘されています。

ＳＦＡＳ　１４６　−Accounting for Costs Associated with Exit or Disposal Activities
Lack of Evidence to indicate that the self insurance data prepared by the Third Party specialist were tested.
Lack of Evidence in audit documentation that the non-compete agreements should or not be capitalized and amortization of the caplitaized non-compete agreements after the termination of the executives.
Lack of Evidence to support the appropriateness of the goodwill impairment analysis
Inappropriate sampling methodology to select the samples for testing the supplier rebates receivables, deferred rebate balances, and costs of sales adjustments.
Inappropriate sampling methodology to select the samples and test the fairvalue of the pricing in all segments.
Failure to evaluate the impact of the errors on the A/R confirmation obtained.
EITF No. 96-18 - "Accounting for Equity Instruments that are issued other than for employees for acquiring, or conjunction with selling goods or services" (Read and edit later)
Lack of Evidence indicating the evaluation or testing was conducted for the historical study of the credit balances, which were reclassified.
Failure to evaluate the audit differences (significant portion was not included)

上記の指摘事項に対して、財務諸表のＲｅ−Ｓｔａｔｅｍｅｎｔも監査意見の訂正？もしないと返答しているな。。。
これって、強気なのかな。
他のＢｉｇ　４の返答についても、これからはよく読むようにしようっと。

補足：

ＳＦＡＳ１４６　＆ＥＩＴＦ　Ｎｏ．９６−１８：　Ｓｅｅ　ＦＡＳＢ　ｗｅｂｓｉｔｅ.

http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/9134132?f=alerts

Issuer A: The auditor failed to identify a departure from GAAP.
After no longer using a portion of leased office space, the issuer's calculated liability and related costs for the operating lease was not in line with FAS 146, Accounting for Costs Associated with Exit or Disposal Activities.
Issuer C: The auditor used a testing sample that was non-representative.
The firm failed to test a sufficient portion of supplier rebates receivable, deferred rebate balances, and cost of sales adjustments during its testing when it decided to look at only large supplier contracts. By doing so, the firm could not draw a conclusion on all of the supplier contracts
Issuer G: The auditor did not show whether it had done proper testing.
The firm needed to determine if how the issuer had reclassified the amounts of certain credit balances was appropriate.
Issuer H: The auditor failed to include an audit difference that was more than four times its posting threshold on its summary of audit differences.
Aggregate audit differences that were identified by the firm would have had an unfavorable effect on net income of 3.8 percent if recorded, but the figure would have been higher — 5.1 percent — had the firm not omitted this additional audit difference.