IIA IIA-CIA-Part2 - Practice of Internal Auditing

Nonsampling risk refers to the risk that the auditor reaches an incorrect conclusion due to errors not related to the sample itself but to other factors such as misinterpretation of data, incorrect application of procedures, or human error.

IIA Practice Advisory 2320-3:

This advisory explains that nonsampling risk occurs when an auditor misinterprets results or applies the wrong audit procedure. It differs from sampling risk, which is the risk that a sample is not representative of the population.

Misinterpretation of Sampling Results:

In this case, the senior IT auditor misinterprets the sampling results during the audit of inventory valuation. This is a classic example of nonsampling risk, where the error is due to the auditor’s misunderstanding or misapplication of the data, rather than an issue with the sampling process itself.

IIA Standard 2320 – Analysis and Evaluation:

This standard requires that auditors apply sufficient care and skill in analyzing and interpreting audit evidence. Nonsampling risk can occur if this standard is not met, resulting in incorrect conclusions.

Option A (Sampling risk): This refers to the risk that the sample does not accurately represent the population, which is not the issue here.

Option B (Control risk): This refers to the risk that a control will fail to prevent or detect errors or fraud, unrelated to this situation.

Option D (Residual risk): This refers to the risk that remains after controls are implemented, also unrelated to this scenario.

Detailed Explanation:Why Not Other Options?Conclusion: Option C is correct as it accurately describes the situation where the auditor misinterprets the sampling results, which is a form of nonsampling risk, according to IIA guidance.

When concerned about whether a transaction is recorded in the correct period, the internal auditor should consult accounting principles, standards, and relevant guidelines to determine the appropriate timing of the entry. External auditor approval does not negate the internal auditor's responsibility to ensure that the transaction complies with established accounting standards and principles. Consulting the relevant guidelines provides an objective basis for assessing the accuracy of the transaction's recording.

A flowchart is primarily used to evaluate the design of controls by visually representing the sequence of operations, decision points, and control activities within a process. This helps the internal auditor identify weaknesses, redundancies, and gaps in internal controls.

Preparing for testing the effectiveness of controls (A) comes later in the audit process, after evaluating the design.

Planning for evaluating potential losses (B) focuses on risk assessment rather than control design.

Preparing a sampling plan (C) is a different step in the audit process, where the auditor determines the scope and sample size.

According to IIA guidance, a chief audit executive (CAE) may request external consultants to complement internal audit activity (IAA) resources when the audit universe is extensive and diverse. This justifies the need for additional expertise and resources that the internal team may not possess, ensuring comprehensive coverage and effective audit processes. External consultants can bring specialized skills and knowledge, enhancing the internal audit activity's ability to address a broad range of risks and issues within the organization. References: IIA Standard 1210 – Proficiency, IIA Practice Advisory 1210.A1-1

To obtain a general understanding of the natural gas market, the market share the organization wants to win, and the competitive advantage the organization may have, the best source of information is to interview responsible managers and read strategic documents. Managers involved in the new line of business will have insights into the market dynamics, strategic goals, and competitive positioning. Strategic documents will provide detailed plans and objectives, giving a comprehensive understanding of the organization's approach and expectations.

Audit workpaper preparation is an essential aspect of an internal auditor's work that contributes significantly to their professional development. Preparing workpapers helps auditors develop their skills in documenting audit evidence, supporting audit conclusions, and enhancing their understanding of the audit process. This process ensures that the auditor gains a thorough understanding of the engagement and strengthens their analytical and documentation skills.

IIA References:

IIA Standard 2330: Documenting Information requires internal auditors to prepare workpapers that document relevant information to support the conclusions and engagement results. This process is integral to their professional development, as it hones their ability to capture and organize audit evidence effectively.

The Practice Guide on Audit Documentation emphasizes that workpaper preparation helps auditors develop critical thinking and ensures that they can justify their findings and conclusions based on documented evidence.

The Chief Audit Executive (CAE) would be justified in reporting the situation to the organization's board if, in the opinion of the CAE, the level of residual risk assumed by senior management is too high (1). Even though the new process of obtaining written approval by the vice president of sales addresses the issue, if the CAE believes that the residual risk remains too high, it is their duty to report it to the board. The cost of implementing a preventive control or the compliance with the new process does not change the responsibility of the CAE to report significant residual risks to the board.

An assurance map is a tool used by the chief audit executive (CAE) to provide a visual representation of the assurance activities performed by various assurance providers within the organization, including internal audit, compliance, risk management, and external auditors. It helps in identifying areas of overlap, gaps in assurance coverage, and ensuring efficient and effective coordination among different assurance providers. References:

The IIA’s Practice Guide on Coordinating Risk Management and Assurance.

If a control is found to be poorly designed during the planning stage, testing its operating effectiveness becomes redundant because even a well-implemented but poorly designed control will not achieve its intended objectives. The primary focus should be on redesigning the control to ensure it is effective in mitigating risks. Therefore, the auditor should not have proceeded to test the operational effectiveness of a control that was already deemed poorly designed.References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (Standards)

"Auditing: A Risk-Based Approach to Conducting a Quality Audit" by Karla M. Johnstone et al.