IIA IIA-CIA-Part2 - Practice of Internal Auditing

In this situation, the internal auditor has identified a significant risk related to the failure to maintain air quality monitoring equipment. Since the CEO and the manager have acknowledged the risk but decided not to take corrective action due to cost concerns, the chief audit executive (CAE) should escalate the issue to the board. This step is necessary to ensure that the board is fully informed of the potential regulatory and reputational risks.

IIA Standard 2600 – Communicating the Acceptance of Risks:

This standard requires the CAE to communicate to senior management and the board when management has accepted a level of risk that the CAE believes is unacceptable. The board needs to be made aware of the situation to ensure they can take appropriate action if needed.

Risk Communication:

The CAE’s responsibility includes ensuring that all significant risks are communicated to the highest level of the organization. In this case, the potential for regulatory sanctions and reputational damage due to inaccurate air quality monitoring is a significant risk that the board should be aware of.

IIA Practice Advisory 2600-1:

The advisory emphasizes that when the CAE believes that management has accepted a level of risk that could be detrimental to the organization, it is the CAE’s duty to escalate the matter to the board.

Option A (Implement corrective actions): It is not the CAE's role to implement corrective actions; this responsibility lies with management.

Option C (Discuss with external auditors): While external auditors can provide additional perspectives, the CAE should directly communicate significant risks to the board.

Option D (Contact the regulatory agency): This is an extreme step that should only be considered if the organization fails to address the issue after internal escalation.

Detailed Explanation:Why Not Other Options?

Inherent risk is the susceptibility of an activity to material error, fraud, or noncompliance before considering controls. For an AI program in development, the immediate and significant risk lies in copyright and intellectual property violations if the program captures and uses images owned by others. This risk exists inherently and could lead to lawsuits, reputational damage, and regulatory sanctions.

Options A and B represent possible outcomes but not immediate risks. Option D is a compliance issue but not immediate, as the regulation comes into force later. The most urgent and inherent risk is Option C, the unauthorized use of third-party content.

Given the situation where a system error prevents the engagement supervisor from adding her electronic signature to the workpapers, the most appropriate response to provide evidence of supervisory review is to print, sign, and date each workpaper after the review is complete, and then scan the document into the database as evidence of review. This ensures that there is a clear and traceable record of the supervisory review process, which is crucial for maintaining the integrity and reliability of the audit documentation.

Printed Documentation: Printing the workpapers provides a physical copy that can be signed and dated, serving as a tangible record of the review.

Signature and Date: The supervisor's signature and date indicate the completion of the review process and provide accountability.

Scanning into Database: Scanning the signed documents back into the electronic workpaper database ensures that the evidence of review is stored in the system of record, maintaining consistency and accessibility.

This method upholds the standards of documentation and supervisory review, ensuring compliance with internal audit policies and procedures.

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Standards

IIA Practice Advisory: Documenting Information

ï‚· Authority Source: The internal audit charter is a formal document that defines the internal audit activity's purpose, authority, and responsibility. It grants internal auditors the right to access all records, personnel, and physical properties relevant to the performance of engagements.

ï‚· Facilities Maintenance Reports: When an engagement supervisor contacts a third-party contractor for maintenance reports, the authority is derived from the internal audit charter, which ensures auditors have the necessary access to perform their duties.

ï‚· Importance of the Charter: This ensures the independence and objectivity of the internal audit activity, providing a clear mandate for auditors to obtain information from external parties as needed.

During engagement planning, an internal auditor uses a flowchart to evaluate the design of controls. A flowchart visually represents the processes and controls within the organization, helping the auditor identify control points, weaknesses, and potential risks. This understanding is critical for planning the audit, as it allows the auditor to design tests that effectively assess whether the controls are properly designed and implemented to mitigate risks.

Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (Standards), Standard 2210 – Engagement Objectives.

Impairment of Independence: The organizational independence of the internal audit activity can be impaired if the CAE has had significant roles in management, such as managing the finance department. This prior involvement may create a conflict of interest or perceived bias.

IIA Standards on Independence: The IIA emphasizes the importance of independence and objectivity in internal auditing. Any prior management role, especially in the department being audited, can compromise the CAE's objectivity.

Examples of Impairment:

Administrative Reporting: While reporting administratively to the CFO (option A) or functionally to the CEO (option C) does not inherently impair independence, managing the finance department previously (option D) creates a direct conflict.

Overseeing Risk Management: Overseeing the risk management function (option B) is part of the CAE's responsibilities and does not impair independence if handled properly.

IIA Standard 1100 - Independence and Objectivity.

According to the CIA study materials, in small audit functions where one person conducts the engagement, a checklist ensures that tasks are documented and provides a record of completion. This creates a reliable audit trail and supports supervisory review (per Standard 2330 – Documenting Information).

Option A does not apply since only one auditor is involved.

Option B is incorrect because checklists are not primarily for business representatives.

Option C is incorrect: prior audit results would be found in past reports, not a checklist.

Therefore, the primary benefit in this scenario is retention of an audit trail (Option D).

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

The most objective way to validate hours worked is to cross-check billed hours with independent evidence of presence — such as access logs (C) from security or entry systems. This provides direct evidence that contracted personnel were on-site.

Option A (due diligence review) focuses on vendor selection, not time validation.

Option B relies on vendor-supplied data, which may be manipulated.

Option D provides insights but is subjective.

According to IIA Standard 2310, evidence must be reliable and verifiable. Access logs provide such assurance, making Option C the strongest choice.

Tracing starts with source documents (e.g., receiving reports) and follows them forward through invoices and accounting entries to ensure completeness.

Vouching starts with recorded entries and looks backward to supporting documents, testing validity.

Independent confirmation involves external verification (e.g., with vendors).

Reperformance involves redoing a control activity.

Here, the test begins with receiving documents and traces forward to invoices and postings, making tracing the correct procedure (Option B).

When auditing an organization's cash-handling activities, the most reliable form of testimonial evidence comes from a knowledgeable person who is independent of the cashiering duty. This independence ensures that the testimonial evidence is unbiased and not influenced by those directly involved in the processes being reviewed. Such evidence is considered more reliable as it is less likely to be affected by personal interests or biases.

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Practice Guide: Evaluating Evidence

IIA Standard 2310 - Identifying Information

Audit observations are structured around the 4Cs: Condition, Criteria, Cause, and Consequence.

Criteria = what “should be.”

Condition = what “is.”

Cause = why the deviation occurred.

Consequence = effect or risk.

In this case, the correct criteria is that each invoice should be recorded only once in the accounting system (Option A). Options B and C describe condition and consequence, while Option D is irrelevant.

A. Information obtained from historic audits and memos:Useful for context but not typically part of the formal work program.

B. Risk and control registers or matrices:Used in the planning phase but not part of the detailed execution in the work program.

C. Resource deployment plans and sampling methodologies:Correct. These are essential components of the work program, guiding audit execution and resource allocation.

D. Prior findings and management responses:Inform planning but do not typically appear in the work program itself.

CIA Exam Syllabus Reference:

Domain V: Performing Internal Audit Services – Engagement Work Program.

Stratified sampling is used when the population can be divided into distinct subgroups (strata) that differ significantly from each other but are internally homogeneous. In the context of auditing, revenue earned through cash receipts or as receivables would have different characteristics and risk profiles. Stratifying the population allows the auditor to ensure that each subgroup is adequately represented in the sample, leading to more reliable and accurate audit conclusions.

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Practice Guide: Audit Sampling

IIA Standard 2320 - Analysis and Evaluation

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

The three-way match (A) is the most effective control to ensure that services have been received and align with both requisition and invoicing. For temporary employees, this means verifying that hours worked or services provided match the purchase requisition and that an invoice is only paid if supported by documentation of services received.

Option B (management approval) ensures authorization but not service completion.

Option C provides clarity but is not a control for verifying actual work.

Option D ensures budgetary compliance but does not prevent overpayment for unperformed services.

Thus, the strongest control is Option A, ensuring validity, accuracy, and completeness of vendor payments.

According to IIA guidance, an engagement work program is designed to test the effectiveness of process controls within an organizational process. This involves evaluating whether the controls are adequately designed and operating effectively to mitigate identified risks and achieve the process objectives. The work program outlines the specific procedures and steps auditors will take to gather evidence and assess the controls in place, ensuring that they address the relevant risks and comply with the organization's standards and policies.

IIA Standard 2240: Engagement Work Program

IIA Practice Guide: Internal Audit Quality Assurance