IIA IIA-CIA-Part2 - Practice of Internal Auditing

Combining observations into one reported finding can be appropriate when they were noted during the same audit and the action plan has a common owner. In this case, the failure of both the financial reporting function and the AR staff to perform reconciliations regularly is interconnected and points to a systemic issue under the responsibility of the controller. Addressing these issues together can provide a more comprehensive view of the control deficiencies and facilitate more effective remediation. References:

The IIA’s International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (Standards), specifically Standard 2410 - Criteria for Communicating.

The IIA’s Practice Advisory on Communicating Results.

When an internal auditor is unable to find supporting documentation for selected accounts during a test, the appropriate next step is to contact management to determine if the documentation is stored elsewhere. This ensures that all potential sources of evidence are explored before drawing any conclusions.

IIA Standard 2310 – Identifying Information:

This standard requires auditors to obtain sufficient, reliable, relevant, and useful information to support their findings. If documentation is missing, the auditor must investigate further to determine if the evidence exists in another location or form.

Contacting Management:

Before concluding that the test failed or expanding the sample, the auditor should first check with management to see if the documentation might be stored in an alternative location. This step ensures that the audit results are based on a thorough and complete examination of available evidence.

IIA Practice Advisory 2330.A1-1:

The advisory suggests that auditors should consider all sources of evidence and confirm with management if there are any alternative ways to obtain the necessary information.

Option A (Conclude that the test failed): This conclusion would be premature without first attempting to locate the missing documentation.

Option B (Select new accounts): This could lead to the same issue if the documentation is not missing but simply stored elsewhere.

Option C (Expand the sample size): Expanding the sample is unnecessary if the issue is simply that the documentation is stored in a different place.

Detailed Explanation:Why Not Other Options?Conclusion: Option D is correct because it involves taking the logical next step of contacting management to locate the missing documentation, ensuring that the audit is thorough and the conclusions drawn are based on all available evidence, in line with IIA standards.

When conducting a review of an electronic data interchange (EDI) application provided by a third-party service, it is essential to determine whether an independent review of the service provider's operation has been conducted and to verify that the service provider’s contracts include necessary clauses. These steps ensure that the service provider operates securely and meets the organization’s requirements for data protection and service reliability.

IIA References:

IIA Standard 2100: Nature of Work indicates that internal audit should evaluate the adequacy and effectiveness of controls, including those at third-party service providers. Verifying that an independent review has been conducted and ensuring that contracts contain the necessary clauses are critical steps in assessing these controls.

The Practice Guide on Third-Party Risk Management advises internal auditors to review the service provider’s contractual agreements and independent audit reports to assess the adequacy of controls and compliance with standards.

A. To better understand and influence executives' planning:Influencing planning is not a primary purpose of networking.

B. To make executives aware of the benefits that the internal audit activity can provide:Correct. Networking ensures executives understand how internal audit can add value.

C. To assist executives in setting the organization’s risk appetite:Risk appetite is primarily a management responsibility.

D. To have a better understanding of the training needed for the audit team:Training needs can be assessed through other means.

CIA Exam Syllabus Reference:

Domain IV: Managing the Internal Audit Function – Stakeholder Engagement.

When the internal audit activity lacks the expertise to perform an audit engagement in a specialized area like IT, the most appropriate action for the CAE is to outsource the engagement to a reputable IT audit consulting firm. This ensures that the audit is conducted by professionals with the necessary skills and experience, thereby maintaining the quality and reliability of the audit.

IIA References:

IIA Standard 1210: Proficiency requires that internal auditors possess the knowledge, skills, and other competencies needed to perform their responsibilities. When the internal audit activity does not have the required expertise for a specific engagement, the CAE must obtain competent advice and assistance, either by hiring external experts or outsourcing the work.

IIA Standard 2070: External Service Provider and Organizational Responsibility for Internal Auditing advises that when the internal audit activity uses external service providers, the CAE must ensure that the provider possesses the necessary skills and knowledge.

According to IIA guidance, curiosity is a key attribute that indicates a candidate’s ability to probe further when reviewing incidents that have the appearance of misbehavior. Curiosity drives the auditor to ask deeper questions, seek out underlying causes, and thoroughly investigate anomalies. While integrity (Option A), flexibility (Option B), and initiative (Option C) are important qualities for an internal auditor, curiosity specifically relates to the propensity to investigate and uncover the truth behind incidents.References:

IIA Standard 1200: Proficiency and Due Professional Care.

IIA Practice Guide on Competency Framework for Internal Auditing.

When assigning tasks to audit team members, the auditor in charge primarily considers factors that directly affect the quality and efficiency of the audit, such as the auditors' experience and availability, as well as the need for outside resources. While the sufficiency of budgeted hours is important for overall audit planning, it is not a direct factor in the assignment of specific tasks to team members. The assignment is more focused on ensuring that the right skills are matched to the tasks and that resources are properly coordinated with client availability. References:

IIA Standards - 1200: Proficiency and Due Professional Care

IIA Practice Guide - Coordination and Reliance: Developing an Assurance Map

Ensuring the quality of an audit engagement, especially a consulting engagement in a complex area like human resources, requires effective supervision and quality assurance measures. Peer review during fieldwork is a recognized method for maintaining high-quality audit work.

IIA Standard 2340 – Engagement Supervision:

This standard requires that engagements be properly supervised to ensure that objectives are achieved, quality is maintained, and audit work is consistent with IIA standards. Peer reviews during fieldwork can help identify issues early and improve the overall quality of the audit.

Fieldwork Peer Review:

Quality Assurance: Peer reviews involve having another auditor review the work performed during fieldwork. This process helps identify any potential issues or improvements in real-time, ensuring that the final work product meets the required standards.

Continuous Improvement: By incorporating peer reviews, the internal audit activity can ensure that best practices are followed, and any deviations from the standard audit process are corrected promptly.

IIA Practice Advisory 2340-1:

This advisory recommends peer reviews as a method to ensure quality and to provide feedback to auditors on their work, enhancing the effectiveness of the engagement.

Option A (Assign an experienced manager): While supervision is essential, peer reviews provide additional quality checks beyond just monitoring by a manager.

Option C (Standardized work program): This ensures consistency but may not be sufficient to ensure quality without additional review mechanisms.

Option D (CAE personally supervising): This is not the most efficient use of the CAE’s time. Peer review distributes the supervisory load and adds value through diverse perspectives.

Detailed Explanation:Why Not Other Options?Conclusion: Option B is correct as it aligns with best practices for quality assurance in internal auditing, particularly in ensuring the effectiveness and efficiency of the engagement through peer reviews during fieldwork.

According to IIA Standards, acceptable practices for testing conformance through a quality assurance review include conducting a self-assessment with independent validation (2) and arranging for reciprocal peer review with another CAE (4). These methods provide a cost-effective and practical approach to ensuring compliance with professional standards, especially for small internal audit activities. Using an external service provider (1) and arranging for a review by qualified employees outside of the IAA (3) are also valid, but self-assessment with independent validation and peer review are specifically highlighted for smaller IAAs. References: IIA Standard 1312 – External Assessments, IIA Practice Guide – Quality Assurance and Improvement Program