Final answer:
Sales to related parties are typically of less concern to an auditor when designing substantive tests for the sales/collection cycle, as they require proper disclosure but do not inherently suggest a material misstatement if recorded correctly.
Step-by-step explanation:
When designing substantive tests for the sales/collection cycle, an auditor is primarily concerned with verifying the validity, accuracy, and completeness of the transactions recorded. Among the options presented, sales to related parties, such as officers and subsidiaries (Option B), are typically of less concern compared to the others in most auditing contexts. This is because while related party transactions require disclosure, they are not inherently indicative of material misstatements in the financial statements if they are properly recorded and disclosed.
Option A, sales included in the journal for which no shipment was made, concerns about existence and occurrence. Option C, sales recorded more than once, deals with the risk of overstatement. Option D, shipments to nonexistent customers, is an indication of potential fraudulent activity. All of these are more direct risks to the financial statement's integrity than a sale to a related party, which is required to be disclosed under accounting regulations but does not, by itself, suggest an error or fraud.