IIA IIA-CIA-Part2 - Practice of Internal Auditing

Internal auditors can rely on the work of other assurance providers, including internal compliance teams, to expand their audit coverage efficiently. This practice is based on the principle of leveraging existing assurance functions within the organization to avoid duplication of efforts and to use resources more effectively. By relying on the work performed by compliance teams, internal auditors can ensure comprehensive coverage without necessarily increasing the direct audit hours. However, it is crucial that the internal auditors evaluate the competence and objectivity of the compliance teams and ensure that their work meets the required standards before relying on it.

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Standard 2050: Coordination and Reliance

IIA Practice Advisory 2050-2: Relying on the Work of Other Assurance Providers

The primary weakness of internal control questionnaires (ICQs) is that the respondents, who are often managers or personnel responsible for specific areas, may have incentives to indicate that internal controls are in place, even when they might not be effective or fully operational. This can occur due to a desire to present their department in a positive light, avoid scrutiny, or because of misunderstandings about what constitutes a control. This bias in responses can lead to inaccurate assessments of the internal control environment.

IIA References:

IIA Standard 2310: Identifying Information and its accompanying guidance highlight the importance of obtaining accurate, reliable, and unbiased information when assessing controls. The potential for biased responses in ICQs is a known risk that can undermine the quality of the audit evidence gathered.

The Practice Guide on Evaluating Internal Controls notes that while ICQs are useful for gathering information, auditors should be aware of the limitations and potential biases inherent in this method.

A gap analysis is used to assess the completeness of sales invoices by identifying any missing records within a sequence. This technique helps in pinpointing any sales that might have been omitted or unrecorded during the invoicing process. By comparing expected sequences with actual recorded transactions, the auditor can identify discrepancies and ensure all sales are accounted for.

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Practice Guide: Data Analytics

IIA Standard 2320 - Analysis and Evaluation

When developing a talent management strategy, a chief audit executive would find a gap analysis most helpful. A gap analysis identifies the differences between the current skills and competencies of the internal audit staff and the skills and competencies needed to achieve the audit function's objectives. This analysis helps in understanding the specific areas where training, recruitment, or other talent development efforts are necessary, thus enabling the development of a targeted and effective talent management strategy.

IIA Practice Guide: "Talent Management for Internal Auditors"

IIA Standard 2030: "Resource Management"

When planning the first audit of IT shared services, it is typical to evaluate entity-level controls first. Entity-level controls are overarching controls that affect the entire organization and are foundational for ensuring that specific application and transaction controls operate effectively. These controls include the organization's governance, risk management processes, and the overall control environment. Assessing entity-level controls provides a broad understanding of the control environment and highlights any pervasive issues that might impact more detailed areas of the audit.

The IIA's Global Technology Audit Guide (GTAG) and COSO's Internal Control - Integrated Framework.

The corporate risk register is a comprehensive document that records identified risks, their assessment in terms of likelihood and impact, and the controls in place to manage them. It reflects the organization’s attitude toward risk and highlights areas where achieving objectives may be difficult. The CAE should consult this resource to align the audit plan with the organization's risk profile and ensure that high-risk areas are appropriately audited. References:

IIA Standards - 2010: Planning

IIA Practice Guide - Risk Management

An audit finding should include the standard(s) used by the auditor to make the evaluation (2) and the factual evidence found during the examination (4). These components provide the basis for the auditor's conclusions and ensure that the findings are well-supported and objective. The scope of the audit (1) and the engagement's objectives (3) are typically included in the overall audit report but are not components of individual audit findings.

If the chief audit executive (CAE) is uncertain that the current audit team has all the required knowledge to conduct the engagement, the most appropriate course of action is to use an external service provider. This helps preserve the independence and objectivity of the internal audit function.

Expertise: External service providers bring specialized knowledge and expertise that may not be available within the internal team.

Independence: Utilizing an external provider ensures that the audit maintains its independence and objectivity, avoiding any potential conflicts of interest.

Quality: Ensures that the audit engagement is conducted with the highest standards, leveraging the external provider's experience and skills.

One of the five basic financial statement assertions that an internal auditor evaluates when assessing controls over financial reporting is "existence or occurrence." This assertion verifies that assets, liabilities, and equity interests actually exist at a given date, and that recorded transactions have actually occurred during a given period. It ensures that the financial statements are not overstated through the inclusion of fictitious or erroneous items.

COSO Framework

PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 15: Audit Evidence

The primary objective of an internal auditor during an exit conference is to ensure that the engagement conclusions are accurate and that the facts presented in the audit report are correct. This involves discussing the audit findings with the engagement client, clarifying any misunderstandings, and ensuring that the conclusions are based on accurate and complete information.

IIA References:

IIA Standard 2440: Disseminating Results emphasizes the importance of accurate and clear communication of audit results. The exit conference is a key part of this process, ensuring that any discrepancies or concerns are addressed before finalizing the report.

The Practice Guide on Conducting Exit Conferences highlights the importance of using the exit conference to verify that the auditor’s conclusions are well-founded and that the client understands and agrees with the findings.

In this scenario, the internal auditor performed a test of controls on the accounts receivable ledger and found that the error rate was within management's expectations. Since the audit focused on the accounts receivable controls, the conclusion should be specific to the scope of the engagement. The auditor can provide positive assurance about the effectiveness of the controls over the recording of transactions in the accounts receivable ledger, as the evidence gathered supports this conclusion.

IIA References:

IIA Standard 2410: Criteria for Communicating states that communications must include the engagement’s objectives and scope as well as applicable conclusions, recommendations, and action plans. Since the engagement was focused on accounts receivable, the assurance provided should relate specifically to the controls in that area.

The Practice Guide on Communicating Results emphasizes that conclusions and assurance should be directly related to the scope of the engagement and the evidence obtained.

According to the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) guidance, the independence and objectivity of the internal audit function are fundamental principles. Independence is compromised if the internal audit function takes on roles or responsibilities that are part of management's duties. Coordinating and managing the risk management process is a management responsibility. If internal auditors assume this role, it impairs their ability to remain independent and objective when auditing the effectiveness of the risk management process. References: IIA Standard 1112 – Chief Audit Executive Roles Beyond Internal Auditing

For a one-person audit function, the primary focus is on ensuring that there is a clear understanding of the audit policies and procedures without the need for extensive documentation. According to the IIA's guidance, a memorandum stating the policies and procedures would suffice for a one-person audit function, providing a concise yet comprehensive outline of the necessary protocols to follow. This approach ensures that the sole auditor has clear directives while avoiding the administrative burden of maintaining a more extensive manual that might be necessary for larger audit teams.

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) - Practice Advisory 2040-1: Policies and Procedures

Root cause-based recommendations are most likely to propose long-term solutions. These recommendations address the underlying causes of issues rather than just the symptoms. By identifying and addressing the root causes, the solutions implemented are more likely to be effective in preventing the recurrence of the same or similar issues in the future.

Root Cause Analysis: This involves a thorough investigation to identify the fundamental reasons for the occurrence of a problem. It goes beyond immediate symptoms to understand the deeper issues.

Long-term Solutions: Recommendations based on root cause analysis focus on eliminating the underlying causes, leading to sustainable improvements and reducing the likelihood of repeat issues.

Systemic Improvements: Addressing root causes often leads to changes in processes, controls, or organizational practices, resulting in broader and more lasting benefits.

By focusing on the root cause, the recommendations provide more robust and enduring solutions, contributing to the overall improvement and resilience of the organization.

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Standards

IIA Practice Guide: Root Cause Analysis in Internal Auditing

In this scenario, the most appropriate action for the internal auditor is to verify that the risk highlighted by the previous audit has indeed been addressed by the new IT system. This involves a detailed examination of the system documentation and possibly testing the controls within the new system. Once the auditor confirms that the new system adequately addresses the identified risk, they should report this finding to senior management and close the issue.

This approach ensures that the internal audit activity adheres to the IIA Standards regarding follow-up on audit findings, which requires auditors to ensure that agreed-upon actions have been implemented effectively.

IIA References:

IIA Standard 2500: Monitoring Progress mandates that the chief audit executive must establish and maintain a system to monitor the disposition of results communicated to management. This includes ensuring that the risks identified are appropriately addressed.

The Practice Advisory 2500.A1-1: Follow-up Process advises that follow-up is a critical part of the audit process, and it is essential to confirm that management actions address the risks identified during the audit.

Given these considerations, the correct answer is A. The auditor examines the system documentation of the new system to verify that the risk has been addressed in the new system, then reports to senior management the closure of the issue.