HP 2009 Annual Report Download - page 84

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of
Hewlett-Packard Company
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Hewlett-Packard Company and
subsidiaries as of October 31, 2009 and 2008, and the related consolidated statements of earnings,
stockholders’ equity and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended October 31, 2009.
Our audits also included the financial statement schedule listed in the Index at Item 15(a)(2). These
financial statements and schedule are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and schedule based on our audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting
Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An
audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the
financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant
estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We
believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects,
the consolidated financial position of Hewlett-Packard Company and subsidiaries at October 31, 2009
and 2008, and the consolidated results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the three
years in the period ended October 31, 2009, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting
principles. Also, in our opinion, the related financial statement schedule, when considered in relation to
the basic financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the information
set forth therein.
As discussed in Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements, in fiscal year 2009, Hewlett-
Packard Company changed its method of accounting for revenue recognition with the adoption of
amendments to the Financial Accounting Standards Board (‘‘FASB’’) Accounting Standards
Codification (‘‘ASC’’) resulting from Accounting Standards Update No. 2009-13, Multiple-Deliverable
Revenue Arrangements, and Accounting Standards Update No. 2009-14, Certain Revenue Arrangements
That Include Software Elements, both adopted effective November 1, 2008 and its method of accounting
for the measurement date provisions for its defined benefit postretirement plans in accordance with the
guidance provided in FASB Statement No. 158, Employers’ Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and
Other Postretirement Plans—An Amendment of FASB No. 87, 88, 106 and 132(R) (codified primarily in
FASB ASC Topic 715, Compensation—Retirement Benefits). In fiscal year 2008, Hewlett-Packard
Company changed its method of accounting for income taxes in accordance with the guidance provided
in FASB Interpretation No. 48, Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes, an interpretation of FASB
Statement No. 109 (codified primarily in FASB ASC Topic 740, Income Taxes). In fiscal year 2007,
Hewlett-Packard Company changed its method of accounting for defined benefit postretirement plans
in accordance with the guidance provided in FASB Statement No. 158, Employers’ Accounting for
Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans—An Amendment of FASB No. 87, 88, 106 and
132(R) (codified primarily in FASB ASC Topic 715, Compensation—Retirement Benefits).
We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting
Oversight Board (United States), the effectiveness of Hewlett-Packard Company’s internal control over
financial reporting as of October 31, 2009, based on criteria established in Internal Control—Integrated
Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission and our
report dated December 17, 2009, expressed an unqualified opinion thereon.
/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
San Jose, California
December 17, 2009
77