IIA-CIA-Part2 Practice of Internal Auditing Questions and Answers

When an internal auditor identifies a potential significant weakness in a control and management does not agree with the assessment, the appropriate next step is to perform additional audit work to better articulate the risk. This means gathering more evidence, conducting further analysis, and providing clearer examples of how the weakness could impact the organization. By doing this, the auditor can better communicate the potential consequences and severity of the risk to management, increasing the likelihood of reaching a mutual understanding and agreement on the necessary actions.

References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Practice Guide: Communicating Risk and Control Information

IIA Standard 2310 - Identifying Information

IIA Standard 2410 - Criteria for Communicating

The primary objective of an internal audit engagement supervisor is to uphold the quality of the internal audit actively. This involves ensuring that the audit procedures are performed effectively, the findings are accurate and reliable, and the audit meets the necessary professional standards. The supervisor oversees the audit team's work, provides guidance and support, and ensures that the engagement is conducted according to the internal audit plan and methodology. This role is crucial in maintaining the credibility and integrity of the audit function.References:

IIA Standard 2340: Engagement Supervision

IIA Practice Guide: Internal Auditing and Assurance

The sections of the workpapers most likely to require changes after considering an important compensating control would include the effect of the control weakness, the conclusion on the control weakness, and the recommendation for the control weakness. The effect might be mitigated by the compensating control, leading to a different conclusion and potentially altering the recommendation.

IIA References:

IIA Standard 2310: Identifying Information requires that sufficient, reliable, relevant, and useful information must be obtained to support the engagement results. If a compensating control was not adequately considered, the conclusion and recommendations related to the control weakness might need to be revised to reflect a more accurate assessment.

The Practice Guide on Evaluating Internal Controls suggests that all relevant controls, including compensating controls, should be considered when forming conclusions and making recommendations.

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.

Stratified sampling is a technique that involves dividing a population into subgroups (strata) that share similar characteristics and then taking a sample from each subgroup. In the context of testing purchase transactions by different procurement officers, the transactions can be stratified based on the officers, ensuring that the audit team selects a sample that represents each officer's transactions. This method helps in achieving a more accurate and reliable assessment of the procurement process across all officers.References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), Practice Guide on Sampling

"Auditing and Assurance Services: An Integrated Approach" by Alvin A. Arens, Randal J. Elder, Mark S. Beasley

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.

Establishing credibility, trust, and rapport is critical to the success of an effective interview. When interviewees trust the auditor and feel comfortable, they are more likely to provide honest and useful information. Building rapport also helps in reducing resistance and ensuring a smooth flow of communication during the interview.

IIA References:

IIA Standard 2420: Quality of Communications emphasizes the importance of clear, accurate, and constructive communication. Establishing trust and rapport during interviews contributes to the quality of information gathered, which in turn enhances the overall quality of audit communications.

The Practice Guide on Effective Interviewing Techniques discusses the importance of building rapport and trust to encourage openness and candidness from interviewees.

When an internal auditor conducts a walk-through to evaluate the control design of a process, the techniques most likely to be used are inquiry and observation. These techniques allow the auditor to understand how the process is designed and how controls are implemented and followed in practice.

IIA Standard 2320 – Analysis and Evaluation:

This standard requires internal auditors to analyze and evaluate the information gathered during the engagement to ensure that it is sufficient, relevant, and reliable. During a walk-through, inquiry and observation are key techniques for gathering this information.

Inquiry:

Inquiry involves asking questions of personnel involved in the process to understand the control design, its purpose, and how it is intended to work. This helps the auditor gain insight into the process and identify any potential gaps or weaknesses in control design.

Observation:

Observation allows the auditor to see the process in action. By watching how the process is carried out, the auditor can verify whether the controls are being applied as designed and whether they are effective in practice.

IIA Practice Advisory 2320-1:

The advisory supports the use of inquiry and observation as primary techniques for understanding and evaluating the design and operation of controls during a walk-through.

Option A (Observation and inspection): While useful, inspection is more about examining documents or physical evidence rather than understanding process design.

Option C (Inspection and reperformance): Reperformance involves independently executing a control, which is more relevant for testing control effectiveness rather than evaluating design.

Option D (Inquiry and reperformance): Reperformance is not typically used in a walk-through focused on control design evaluation.

Detailed Explanation:Why Not Other Options?Conclusion: Option B is correct because inquiry and observation are the most appropriate techniques for conducting a walk-through to evaluate the design of a control, as they provide direct insight into how the process and controls are intended to work, in line with IIA standards.

Assessing the effectiveness of management's self-assessment activities in the context of risk management requires a thorough examination of the processes that management uses to monitor and control risks. The most effective way to evaluate these activities is to observe and test the control and monitoring procedures in place.

IIA Standard 2130 – Control:

This standard highlights the internal audit activity’s responsibility to assess whether the organization’s controls are adequate to manage risks. Observing and testing controls directly is the most effective way to determine their operational effectiveness.

IIA Practice Advisory 2130-1:

The advisory recommends that internal auditors should focus on the design and effectiveness of control activities. Observing and testing controls ensures that the auditor can verify whether management's self-assessments accurately reflect the risk environment.

Effectiveness of Risk Management Processes:

To assess the effectiveness of self-assessment, internal auditors need to ensure that the procedures for identifying, assessing, and monitoring risks are robust. Direct observation and testing provide tangible evidence of how these processes are functioning.

Option A (Reviewing corporate policies and board minutes): This provides context but does not directly assess the effectiveness of control procedures.

Option B (Conducting interviews): Interviews can provide insights but are subjective and may not reflect actual control effectiveness.

Option C (Researching industry information): This helps in understanding risks but does not assess how well the organization manages those risks.

Detailed Explanation:Why Not Other Options?Conclusion: Option D is correct as it involves the direct evaluation of the effectiveness of control and monitoring procedures, aligning with IIA’s guidance on assessing risk management processes.

When facilitating a risk and control self-assessment (RCSA) workshop, the internal auditor's most appropriate role is to provide the necessary techniques and guidelines for conducting the exercise. This involves guiding participants on the methodology and framework for identifying and assessing risks and controls without influencing their inputs or conclusions, thereby ensuring an objective and effective self-assessment process. References: = IIA Practice Guide: "Facilitation Skills for Auditors".

Entity-level controls set the tone and establish the framework for the overall control environment within an organization. If these controls are poorly designed or deficient, they can undermine the effectiveness of process-level controls, even if those controls are well-designed. Entity-level controls include governance, risk management, and compliance controls that influence the entire organization. Therefore, deficiencies at this level can have a widespread impact, preventing lower-level controls from functioning properly.References:

Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (Standards), Standard 2130 – Control.

According to the IIA guidance, sufficient information is defined as information that is factual, adequate, and convincing. This means that the information gathered during an audit must be based on verifiable facts, must be enough to form a reasonable conclusion, and must be persuasive enough to support the audit findings and recommendations. Ensuring information meets these criteria is essential for the credibility and reliability of the audit process.

References:

IIA Standard 2310: "Identifying Information"

IIA Practice Advisory 2310-1: "Identifying Information"

Physically inspecting a sample of completed processing cycles for defective products provides direct evidence of the effectiveness of the quality control process. This method allows the internal auditor to observe firsthand whether defective products are being identified and removed prior to shipment, ensuring that the process operates as intended. This approach is more reliable than survey results or management reports, which may be subject to bias or inaccuracies.References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) - Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing, Standard 2320 - Analysis and Evaluation

by a grantee that received a charitable contribution, the most effective method is to visit the grantee and directly assess whether the project execution aligns with the scope defined in the grant. This method provides firsthand evidence of the grantee’s activities and ensures that the charitable contributions are used as intended.

IIA Standard 2310 – Identifying Information:

This standard requires that internal auditors gather sufficient, reliable, relevant, and useful information to achieve the engagement objectives. Visiting the grantee allows auditors to observe and verify the actual execution of the project, which provides the most direct and reliable evidence.

Field Visits:

Conducting a site visit enables auditors to see the project in action, interview relevant personnel, and compare actual activities to what was promised in the grant proposal. This method helps ensure that the grantee is fulfilling its obligations and that the organization’s charitable funds are being used effectively.

Direct Evidence:

Direct observation of the grantee’s activities provides the highest level of assurance regarding the validity of the reported activities. This aligns with IIA’s emphasis on obtaining the best available evidence to support audit findings.

Option B (Verifying final report vs. initial budget): This only compares reports, which might not accurately reflect the actual activities conducted by the grantee.

Option C (Reconciling general ledger accounts): This focuses on financial records, which may not provide sufficient detail about the actual activities conducted.

Option D (Interviewing corporate affairs employees): While informative, this method only provides secondhand information and does not directly verify the grantee’s activities.

Detailed Explanation:Why Not Other Options?Conclusion: Option A is correct because visiting the grantee provides the most reliable and direct evidence that the activities are in line with the grant’s defined scope, ensuring the validity of the grantee’s reported activities.

To investigate unusually high employee turnover at the organization's primary manufacturing plant, the internal auditor is likely to use benchmarking. Benchmarking involves comparing the organization’s turnover rates with those of similar organizations or industry standards to identify deviations and potential issues. This approach helps in understanding whether the turnover rate is indeed unusually high and what factors may be contributing to it.

References:

IIA Practice Guide: Benchmarking in Internal Audit

IIA Standards: 1220 - Due Professional Care

In internal auditing, the reliability of evidence is critical. According to IIA standards, evidence that is obtained directly from an external source, such as a customer, is generally considered more reliable, especially when it is timely.

IIA Standard 2310 – Identifying Information:

This standard requires that internal auditors obtain sufficient, reliable, relevant, and useful information to achieve the engagement’s objectives. Evidence obtained directly from external sources is often deemed more reliable because it is less likely to be biased or manipulated.

Direct Evidence:

Evidence obtained directly from a customer is considered highly reliable because it comes from an independent and external party. It is less likely to be influenced by internal pressures or conflicts of interest.

Timeliness:

The timeliness of evidence also affects its reliability. Recent and relevant information is more likely to accurately reflect the current state of affairs, making it more reliable for decision-making.

Option A (Untested third party): Although external, the reliability of evidence from an untested third party is uncertain until their credibility is established.

Option B (Uncorroborated evidence from an employee): This is less reliable as it may be subject to bias or self-interest.

Option C (Undocumented evidence from a manager): Undocumented evidence is generally less reliable as it lacks supporting documentation that can be verified.

Detailed Explanation:Why Not Other Options?

Verifying that recipients are valid employees is crucial in preventing payroll fraud. This audit objective ensures that only legitimate employees receive payments, thereby mitigating the risk of ghost employees or payments to terminated employees. While verifying amounts, payment timeliness, and benefit deductions are important, ensuring the validity of recipients directly addresses the potential for fraudulent activities in the payroll process.References:

IIA Practice Guide on Auditing Employee Compensation and Benefits.

IIA Standard 1220: Due Professional Care.

According to the International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (Standards) set by the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), internal audit functions are allowed flexibility in including consulting engagements in their annual plans. Standard 2010 – Planning states that "the chief audit executive must establish a risk-based plan to determine the priorities of the internal audit activity, consistent with the organization’s goals." This risk-based plan should consider the potential value-add of consulting engagements. Consulting engagements that are expected to add significant value or align with strategic objectives are often included, but not all requests need to be automatically included unless they meet these criteria.References:

Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (Standards), Standard 2010 – Planning.

Internal control questionnaires are used to determine whether specific control procedures are in place within an organization. They help auditors identify the existence and implementation of controls designed to mitigate risks. These questionnaires can provide a preliminary understanding of the control environment and identify areas that may require further detailed testing.

References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Practice Guide: Using Internal Control Questionnaires to Assess Risk

IIA Standard 2130 - Control

Nonsampling risk is the risk that the auditor may reach incorrect conclusions for reasons not related to the sampling process, such as failure to recognize exceptions or misinterpretation of audit results. In this case, the internal auditor did not notice that some purchase requisitions were approved by unauthorized persons, which is an oversight unrelated to the sample size or selection process. This is distinct from sampling risk, which is the risk that the sample selected does not represent the population. References:

The IIA’s International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (Standards), Standard 2320 - Analysis and Evaluation.

The IIA’s Practice Guide on Audit Sampling.

For an action plan to be effective, it must address the root cause of an observation. The root cause is the underlying reason why a problem or issue has occurred. By targeting the root cause, the action plan can help prevent the recurrence of the issue and ensure long-term resolution. Addressing only the condition or the symptoms of the problem may lead to temporary fixes, whereas understanding and resolving the root cause leads to more sustainable improvements.References:

Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), Practice Guide – Root Cause Analysis.

An internal auditor's primary role is to evaluate and improve the effectiveness of risk management, control, and governance processes. To test the reliability of a customer database, the auditor would focus on identifying potential issues that could affect the accuracy and completeness of the data. This involves reviewing records, reports, and conducting data analysis to identify anomalies, inconsistencies, or patterns that suggest problems with the data. This step directly assesses the reliability of the database, which is crucial for ensuring that the information is accurate and reliable.

References:

Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Standards: Performance Standards 2320: Analysis and Evaluation

Internal Audit Manual: Data Integrity and Database Auditing Techniques

Audit criteria should be appropriate and specific to each audit assignment, considering the unique context and objectives of each engagement. Consistency across all audit assignments (Option A) is not always feasible or desirable, as it could lead to inappropriate assessments. Instead, criteria should be flexible to allow the identification of nonadherence, represent reasonable standards, and align with good management practices relevant to each specific audit.References:

IIA Standard 2201: Planning Considerations.

IIA Practice Guide on Audit Planning.

The most appropriate course of action for the CAE is to evaluate the robustness and feasibility of the management's action plan to address the identified weaknesses. The CAE should monitor the implementation progress, key dates, and deliverables to ensure that corrective actions are on track and will effectively mitigate the risks within the stipulated timeline. References: = IIA Standard 2500 - Monitoring Progress.

The primary purpose of financial statement audit engagements is to review financial reports and ensure they comply with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). This involves verifying the accuracy and fairness of the financial statements, ensuring they provide a true and fair view of the organization's financial position and performance. References: = IIA Practice Guide: “Auditing Financial Statements” and IIA Standard 2110.A1.

In the context of internal auditing, activities that pose immediate and significant risks to health, safety, the environment, or that conceal inappropriate activities within an organization are of high importance and typically require formal communication to the chief audit executive (CAE). These activities could have severe legal, financial, and reputational consequences for the organization. While acts that favor one party to the detriment of another are concerning and may indicate ethical or procedural issues, they are generally considered less critical compared to the other options, as they do not necessarily imply immediate and severe risks to individuals or the organization as a whole.References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (Standards), specifically Standard 2060: Reporting to Senior Management and the Board.

IIA Practice Guide on Communicating Unacceptable Risk.

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.

References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Standards

IIA Practice Guide: Root Cause Analysis in Internal Auditing

When a key control is identified during fieldwork that was not recognized during the planning phase, it is critical to update the audit work program to include tests for this newly identified control. However, this adjustment should be made with the approval of the engagement supervisor. This ensures that the changes are properly documented and that the scope and objectives of the engagement remain aligned with the overall audit plan. Additionally, obtaining approval from the engagement supervisor maintains the integrity and oversight of the audit process.

References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Standard 2240 – Engagement Work Program: "Internal auditors must develop and document work programs that achieve the engagement objectives."

IIA Practice Guide on "Engagement Planning"

If the branch manager decides not to act on a significant risk that was previously acknowledged, the CAE should escalate the issue to the board. The board has ultimate responsibility for risk management and needs to be informed about significant risks and the decisions made by management regarding these risks. This ensures transparency and allows the board to take appropriate action if necessary.

References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Standards

Risk Management Frameworks and Reporting

When developing a workpaper preparation policy, it is essential to ensure that all workpapers are directly related to the engagement objectives. The term "relevant" in this context means that the workpapers must be pertinent and appropriate to the audit engagement’s objectives, ensuring that they support the findings, conclusions, and recommendations.

IIA Standard 2330 – Documenting Information:

This standard requires that internal auditors document relevant information to support engagement conclusions and recommendations. Relevance is key because it ensures that the documentation directly pertains to the objectives of the audit engagement.

Relevance of Workpapers:

Relevant workpapers are those that provide evidence and information that directly supports the audit’s objectives. This relevance ensures that the audit’s findings and conclusions are based on information that is applicable and directly related to the scope of the audit.

IIA Practice Advisory 2330-1:

The advisory suggests that workpapers should be organized and structured in a way that clearly relates to the audit objectives. Including a requirement for relevance in the workpaper policy helps ensure that all documented evidence is pertinent to the audit's goals.

Option A (Understandable): While workpapers should be understandable, this does not directly address the need for workpapers to relate to the engagement objectives.

Option C (Economical): Workpapers being economical refers to their efficiency in documentation, not their relevance to objectives.

Option D (Complete): Completeness is important but refers to the extent of documentation rather than its relevance to specific objectives.

Detailed Explanation:Why Not Other Options?Conclusion: Option B is correct because including the requirement that workpapers be relevant ensures that they directly relate to the engagement objectives, aligning with IIA standards on documentation.

Adding invoices to the computer program to assess the reliability and effectiveness of the review process and whether controls work best describes an internal auditor's use of test data. This approach involves introducing test data into the system to evaluate how well the system processes invoices and whether it effectively identifies and prevents questionable invoices from being processed for payment.

References:

IIA Standards: 1220.A2 - Proficiency and Due Professional Care

IIA Practice Guide: Use of Technology in Auditin

In internal auditing, when assessing the accuracy and completeness of employee time reporting, auditors often use sampling to determine the overall compliance of the process. In this scenario, the internal auditor sampled 30 employee time reports and found 5 incorrect and 4 unsupported reports. This indicates that a majority (21 out of 30) were accurate, suggesting that the organization generally ensures accurate reporting. However, the presence of incorrect and unsupported reports indicates deficiencies that need to be addressed, but do not point to systemic fraud or abuse. Thus, option D accurately reflects the findings by acknowledging both the general accuracy and the instances of errors.References:

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

COSO Framework - Control Activities and Monitoring

A material impact on the accuracy of the prior year's financial statements due to the inaccurate operation of controls is a significant issue that would likely prompt special notification from the chief audit executive (CAE) to senior management. This is because such an issue can have substantial implications for the organization's financial reporting, stakeholder trust, and compliance with regulatory requirements. Immediate notification ensures that senior management can take timely corrective action to address and remediate the issue.

References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Standards

Internal Audit Guidelines on Material Misstatements and Communication

If an internal auditor identifies that some employees have inappropriate access to a key system in the early stage of an audit, the best course of action is to issue an interim audit report so that management can implement action plans. This approach ensures that the identified issue is formally communicated to management promptly, allowing them to take immediate corrective action to mitigate the risk. It also documents the auditor's findings and recommendations, providing a clear audit trail and supporting accountability. Obtaining verbal assurance or creating a ticket might address the issue temporarily but lacks the formal documentation and follow-up mechanisms inherent in an interim audit report.

References:

IIA Standard 2440: "Disseminating Results"

IIA Practice Advisory 2440-1: "Communicating Interim Engagement Results"

Internal auditors must corroborate employee testimonials with tangible evidence to ensure the reliability and validity of the findings. Relying solely on testimonials without supporting evidence can lead to inaccurate conclusions. Standard 2310 – Identifying Information of the International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing emphasizes that sufficient, reliable, relevant, and useful information should be obtained to achieve the engagement’s objectives.References:

Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (Standards), Standard 2310 – Identifying Information.

A compliance assurance engagement focuses on evaluating whether an organization is adhering to applicable laws, regulations, policies, and procedures. Assessing the design adequacy of controls related to consumer privacy and confidentiality is a prime example of such an engagement, as it ensures that the organization’s controls are designed to comply with relevant privacy laws and regulations, thereby protecting consumer data and maintaining compliance.References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) - Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing, Standard 2410 - Criteria for Communicating

The most important determinant of the objectives and scope of assurance engagements is the preliminary risk assessment performed by internal auditors. This assessment identifies the key risks that the engagement should address and ensures that the audit is focused on areas of highest risk and significance to the organization. While organizational charts, business objectives, and management requests are important inputs, the internal auditors' preliminary risk assessment ensures that the audit addresses the most critical areas. References:

The IIA’s International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (Standards), specifically Standard 2210 - Engagement Objectives.

The IIA’s Practice Guide on Engagement Planning.

According to the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) guidance, workpapers are crucial for documenting the evidence that supports audit findings and conclusions. They serve as the primary reference for any reported control deficiencies, providing detailed documentation and justification for the audit results. Workpapers must be thorough and clearly demonstrate the basis for audit observations and recommendations. While audit reports summarize findings, the detailed support for these findings is found within the workpapers.

References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (Standards), Standard 2330: Documenting Information.

IIA Practice Guide, "Audit Workpapers."

According to the IIA Standards, particularly Standard 2500 - Monitoring Progress, internal auditors are responsible for monitoring the disposition of results communicated to management. They need to assess whether management has taken appropriate action to address audit findings or has consciously accepted the risk of not taking action. The follow-up process is crucial to ensure that identified risks are managed effectively. References: = IIA’s Standard 2500 - Monitoring Progress and Practice Guide on Follow-up Processes.

A privacy audit engagement should comprehensively cover all aspects related to the collection, storage, and compliance of personal information. This includes assessing the appropriateness of the information gathered (1), reviewing the methods used to collect the information (2), ensuring the information collected complies with applicable laws (3), and determining how the information is stored (4). This comprehensive approach ensures that the organization adheres to privacy standards and regulations effectively. References: = IIA’s Practice Guide: “Privacy Impact Assessment” and IIA Standard 2110.A2 -

Flowcharts provide a visual depiction of the processes in the area under review, helping internal auditors and stakeholders understand the workflow and identify key control points. Additionally, flowcharts highlight control points, which assist auditors in evaluating the design of controls. These visual tools make it easier to identify potential gaps or weaknesses in the control design and understand how different processes and controls interact. They do not reduce the need for testing whether employees are observing internal control processes or directly prioritize internal control design weaknesses.References: The IIA's International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing, Standard 2201 - Planning Considerations.

Flowcharts are particularly effective for visualizing linear processes, as they clearly depict the sequence of steps, decision points, and flow of information. However, while they provide a useful representation of the process, they may not capture all risks, particularly those that are non-linear or involve complex interactions that are not easily represented in a flowchart format.

IIA References:

IIA Standard 2320: Analysis and Evaluation requires internal auditors to evaluate the design and implementation of processes. Flowcharts can help auditors visualize and understand process flows but may need to be supplemented with other tools (e.g., risk and control matrices) to capture the full range of risks.

The Practice Guide on Process Mapping indicates that flowcharts are valuable for mapping linear processes but should be used in conjunction with other tools when evaluating complex or non-linear processes.

According to IIA guidance, there is no specific frequency mandated for conducting organization-wide risk assessments. Instead, the internal audit activity should perform risk assessments as necessary to reflect significant changes in the organization's business environment, risk profile, and operations. This flexibility allows the internal audit activity to remain responsive and relevant in a dynamic risk landscape.

IIA References:

IIA Standard 2010: Planning requires the CAE to establish risk-based plans to determine the priorities of the internal audit activity, consistent with the organization’s goals. The frequency and timing of risk assessments should be adapted to the organization’s changing conditions.

The IIA Practice Guide on Risk Assessment in Audit Planning emphasizes that risk assessments should be updated as needed, particularly when there are significant changes in the organization or external environment.

According to IIA guidance, the focus of a review of controls to prevent fraud should be on the effectiveness rather than the efficiency of the controls. Effectiveness pertains to whether the controls adequately mitigate fraud risks and prevent fraudulent activities, while efficiency focuses on the performance and cost-effectiveness of the controls, which is not the primary concern in preventing fraud. This makes statement A false in the context of IIA guidance.

References:

IIA Standards: 1220.A1 - Due Professional Care

IIA Practice Guide: Fraud Prevention and Detection in an Automated World

Structured interviews involve the internal auditor holding individual meetings with different people, asking them the same set of questions, and then aggregating the results. This method ensures consistency in the information gathered across multiple respondents, allowing for an effective comparison and analysis of the data collected.

IIA References:

IIA Standard 2310: Identifying Information suggests that information gathered during an audit must be reliable and relevant. Structured interviews help achieve this by ensuring that each interviewee is asked the same questions, thus providing comparable data across the board.

The Practice Guide on Interviewing Techniques emphasizes the use of structured interviews for consistency and comprehensiveness in data collection.

Valid closure of an audit observation requires evidence that the corrected process will function as expected in the future. This involves not just addressing the immediate condition but also ensuring that the root cause has been addressed and that the implemented corrective actions are sustainable and effective in preventing recurrence. This ensures that the underlying issue has been resolved comprehensively. References:

The IIA’s International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (Standards), Standard 2500 - Monitoring Progress.

The IIA’s Practice Guide on Audit Follow-up.

Enhancing stakeholders' perception of the value added by the internal audit activity (IAA) involves demonstrating strong relationships with audit clients (Option 3) and participating in project teams and task forces in an advisory capacity (Option 4). These activities show the IAA’s active involvement in the organization’s operations and its commitment to adding value beyond traditional auditing roles. While the use of computer-assisted audit techniques (Option 1) and a consistent risk-based approach (Option 2) are important, they are more related to internal audit efficiency and effectiveness rather than directly enhancing stakeholder perception of value.References:

IIA Practice Guide on Demonstrating Value.

IIA Standard 2100: Nature of Work.

The efficiency of an audit is greatly influenced by the adequacy of preliminary survey information. Thorough preliminary surveys help auditors understand the audit scope, identify potential issues early, and plan their work efficiently, thereby increasing overall audit efficiency. References: = IIA Practice Guide: “Engagement Planning: Establishing Objectives and Scope” and IIA Standard 2201 - Planning Considerations.

Before developing the audit work program, it is essential to review the contract for evidence of authorization. This step ensures that the contract is valid and approved by the appropriate parties, forming a critical basis for the compliance audit. By confirming authorization, the auditor can ascertain that the contract is legitimate and enforceable, and understand its key terms and conditions, which is necessary for planning and executing the audit effectively. Other steps, such as selecting a sample or assessing risks, are important but should follow after understanding the contract’s validity and scope.References:

Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (Standards), Standard 2201 – Planning Considerations.

Step-by-Step Detailed Explanation:

A. Draft report:Delays action on the weakness, which could be addressed sooner.

B. Preliminary observation document:While helpful, this is not as immediate as verbal communication.

C. Final report:Waiting until the final report would unnecessarily delay corrective action.

D. Verbal communication during the engagement, followed by the final report issuance:Correct. Verbal communication allows immediate management action, with documentation to follow.

CIA Exam Syllabus Reference:

Domain V: Performing Internal Audit Services – Effective Communication of Findings.

The request for new vendor information to be summarized weekly and for invoices to be flagged automatically in the processing system indicates the use of continuous auditing. Continuous auditing involves ongoing, real-time monitoring of transactions and controls, which allows for the early detection of anomalies or issues.

IIA References:

IIA Standard 2320: Analysis and Evaluation suggests that internal auditors should use appropriate technology to support their analysis. Continuous auditing tools are designed to monitor transactions continuously, enabling auditors to identify and address risks more proactively.

The Practice Guide on Continuous Auditing outlines the benefits of real-time monitoring and how it can be integrated into the audit process to enhance the timeliness and relevance of audit results.

According to the IIA’s Implementation Guide for Standard 2340 - Engagement Supervision1, one of the activities that the chief audit executive or the designated engagement supervisor should perform is to review and approve the engagement work program before the commencement of fieldwork. The engagement work program should be based on the engagement objectives, scope, and approach, and should reflect the risks and controls identified during the planning phase. The engagement work program should also be discussed with the engagement team to ensure that they understand the tasks and procedures to be performed, and to address any questions or concerns. The engagement supervisor should document the approval of the work program and any subsequent changes in the workpapers.

Non-assurance engagements, such as consulting activities, involve providing advisory services that add value to management without the auditor expressing a formal opinion or providing assurance on the effectiveness of controls or processes.

IIA Definition of Non-Assurance (Consulting) Services:

Non-assurance services, as defined by the IIA, are advisory and related client service activities. These activities are intended to provide advice and insight into specific issues, such as potential risks in new initiatives, without the internal audit function expressing an assurance opinion.

Consulting Engagements:

In a consulting engagement, the internal audit activity provides information and recommendations to management, allowing them to make informed decisions. In this case, informing management about potential risks of moving the data warehouse to a cloud server is an advisory role, typical of a non-assurance engagement.

IIA Standard 2120 – Risk Management:

While this standard relates to risk management assurance, in a consulting role, the internal audit activity would inform management of risks, allowing them to manage these risks proactively.

Option A (Assessing effects of changes in maintenance strategy): This is more aligned with an assurance engagement where the auditor evaluates the impact of changes.

Option C (Ascertaining data center security compliance): This is an assurance activity focused on compliance.

Option D (Ensuring equipment downtime risks are managed): This implies an assurance role, as it involves verifying compliance with internal policy.

Detailed Explanation:Why Not Other Options?Conclusion: Option B is correct as it reflects a typical non-assurance engagement where the internal audit function provides advisory services on risk without providing formal assurance.

When employees continue to violate segregation-of-duty controls despite previous recommendations, the most effective approach is to recommend appropriate awareness training. This training can help employees understand the importance of these controls and how to comply with them, addressing the root cause of the violations. References: = IIA Standard 2130 - Control and IIA Practice Guide: “Auditing Segregation of Duties”.

When an internal auditor receives a document displaying all the steps of a process and the path taken as transactions flow between each step, the auditor is most likely to use this document to perform an assessment of the adequacy of process controls. This flowchart or process map helps the auditor understand the process, identify key control points, and evaluate whether the existing controls are sufficient to mitigate risks within the process.

References:

IIA Standards: 2201 - Planning the Engagement

IIA Practice Guide: Internal Auditing and Fraud

The most effective time for an internal auditor to develop a risk and control matrix is during the planning phase of an audit engagement. This matrix helps in identifying the key risks and the controls in place to mitigate those risks, which is crucial for developing a focused and effective engagement work program.

IIA References:

IIA Standard 2201: Planning Considerations requires internal auditors to consider significant risks and controls when planning the engagement. Developing a risk and control matrix at this stage ensures that the audit work is appropriately targeted at the most critical areas.

The Practice Guide on Risk Assessment advises that creating a risk and control matrix during planning helps in structuring the audit to address identified risks effectively.

Improper segregation of duties is a fundamental control weakness that significantly increases the risk of fraud. When one individual has control over multiple stages of a financial transaction or operational process, it creates opportunities for fraudulent activities to occur and remain undetected. While incentives and bonus programs (Option B), employee concerns (Option C), and lack of an ethics policy (Option D) are also important indicators of potential fraud risk, they do not present as direct and immediate a vulnerability as improper segregation of duties.References:

IIA Practice Guide on Fraud Prevention and Detection in an Automated World.

IIA Standard 2120: Risk Management.

If an internal auditor decides to adjust the audit work program during the fieldwork phase of an assurance engagement, the most appropriate next step is to obtain approval from the engagement supervisor. This ensures that any changes to the scope or procedures are reviewed and sanctioned by the audit management, maintaining the integrity and alignment of the audit objectives.

References:

IIA Standards: 2240 - Engagement Work Program

IIA Practice Guide: Engagement Planning

When there is a disagreement between the audit team and management, and if the disagreement concerns a significant risk, the issue should be escalated to the audit committee. The audit committee has the authority to review and resolve such disputes. Escalating the issue ensures that the concern is addressed at the highest governance level, maintaining the integrity and effectiveness of the internal audit function.

References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Standards

Internal Audit Governance and Escalation Procedures

When documenting findings from a nonstatistical sample, internal auditors should record the factual observations and quantify the results where possible. In this case, the auditor should document that 17% of the sampled accounts receivable balances exceeded the approved unsecured credit limit. This provides a clear, quantifiable basis for the finding, which is critical for accurate reporting and for management to understand the scope of the issue. Documenting this percentage also supports the auditor's conclusions and recommendations for corrective actions.

References:

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

IIA Standard 2310 - Identifying Information

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

According to IIA guidance, the auditor in charge should consider the number, experience, and availability of audit staff as well as the nature, complexity, and time constraints of the engagement when determining resource requirements. These factors ensure that the engagement is staffed appropriately and that the audit team has the necessary skills and time to perform the audit effectively.

References:

IIA Standards: 2230 - Engagement Resource Allocation

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

Including the annual impact of the changed agreement on cash flows in the observation provides a clear quantification of the financial effect of the policy violation. This information is critical for understanding the significance of the issue and for decision-making regarding corrective actions. It shows the long-term implications of the unauthorized contract change, which is essential for management and the board to assess the severity of the non-compliance and its impact on the organization’s financial health.References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) - Practice Guide: Formulating and Expressing Internal Audit Opinions

The internal auditor has primarily obtained testimonial evidence. Testimonial evidence is derived from interviews, discussions, and responses from employees or other parties. It involves collecting and analyzing verbal information to draw conclusions, which is precisely what the auditor did by conducting interviews, documenting them, analyzing the summaries, and drawing conclusions based on this information.

References:

IIA Standards: 2310 - Identifying Information

IIA Practice Guide: Audit Evidence

In the "Define IT Universe" stage of the IT audit plan development process, the primary action is to identify significant applications that support the business operations. This step involves mapping out the IT environment, including key systems, applications, and infrastructure components that are critical to achieving business objectives. By identifying these significant applications, auditors can focus on areas that have the greatest impact on the organization's performance and risk profile. This stage sets the groundwork for subsequent steps such as risk assessment, ranking subjects, and selecting audit engagements.

References:

IIA Global Technology Audit Guide (GTAG): "Developing the IT Audit Plan"

ISACA’s COBIT Framework for IT Governance and Management

The planning phase is crucial for any audit engagement and must be completed and approved before starting fieldwork. This ensures that the engagement has a clear scope, objectives, and methodology, which are necessary for conducting an effective and efficient audit. Without proper planning, the audit team may miss critical areas or waste resources on low-priority risks.

IIA References:

IIA Standard 2200: Engagement Planning requires that internal auditors develop and document a plan for each engagement, including the engagement’s objectives, scope, timing, and resource allocations, before starting fieldwork.

The Practice Guide on Planning emphasizes that completing and approving the planning phase ensures that all necessary preparations are made, and potential risks are identified and mitigated before fieldwork begins.

According to the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) guidance, the chief audit executive (CAE) should develop a risk-based audit plan that takes into account the organization's risk management framework, including its risk appetite levels. This aligns with Standard 2010 – Planning, which states that the CAE must establish a risk-based plan to determine the priorities of the internal audit activity, consistent with the organization’s goals. Risk appetite levels from management are a critical component of understanding the organization’s risk profile and should be incorporated into the audit plan. Thus, the CAE may incorporate risk information, including risk appetite levels from management, at her discretion.References: IIA's International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing, Standard 2010 – Planning.

The most important group or individual for the CAE to consult to determine the scope of the audit regarding compliance with new environmental regulations is the environmental, health, and safety manager. This individual or group has specialized knowledge about the organization’s operations, regulatory requirements, and existing controls related to environmental compliance. Consulting with the environmental, health, and safety manager ensures that the audit scope is comprehensive and accurately addresses the pertinent risks and compliance requirements. References: IIA Standard 2201 – Planning Considerations, IIA Practice Advisory 2210.A1-1

When deciding whether to report a finding, the sufficiency of the information is critical. Sufficiency refers to the quantity of information obtained to support audit conclusions and recommendations. In this case, the internal auditors need to ensure that the sample size and the evidence collected are adequate to demonstrate that the issue of employees signing purchase orders in a designated acting capacity due to employee absence is significant enough to report. Ensuring sufficiency helps validate that the finding is well-supported and justifies its inclusion in the audit report.References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) - Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing, Standard 2310 - Identifying Information

When the internal audit activity lacks the necessary resources to complete the audit plan, the most appropriate action for the CAE is to ensure that the audit plan is still executed effectively and efficiently. Outsourcing some of the audits to the organization’s external auditor, who is already familiar with the organization, can help mitigate resource constraints. This approach leverages the external auditor’s knowledge of the organization, ensuring continuity and quality in the audit process, while allowing the internal audit function to meet its obligations and deadlines.References:

IIA Standard 2030: Resource Management

IIA Practice Guide: Coordinating Internal Audit and External Audit

Outsourcing fraud investigations to a third-party service provider can result in a lack of familiarity with the organization’s specific operations, culture, and history. This can be a disadvantage as external investigators may require more time to understand the context and nuances of the organization, potentially affecting the efficiency and effectiveness of the investigation. References: = IIA Standard 1210 - Proficiency and IIA Practice Guide: “Internal Audit and Fraud”.

The primary reasons for outsourcing internal audit activities typically include accessing a wider range of skills and competencies, complementing existing expertise for specific engagements, and strengthening core audit functions. Contingency planning, while beneficial, is not a primary reason for outsourcing internal audit activities as it pertains more to risk management strategies rather than the core objectives of outsourcing. References: = IIA’s Practice Advisory 1210.A1-1: Obtaining External Service Providers to Support or Complement the Internal Audit Activity.

When the CAE determines whether the internal audit activity has confirmed the status of all management's corrective actions, it helps in assessing residual risk. Residual risk is the risk that remains after management's actions to mitigate inherent risk. By confirming the status of corrective actions, the CAE can evaluate whether the risks identified during the audit have been adequately addressed and what level of risk still exists, ensuring that the internal control environment is effective and that management's risk responses are appropriate.References: COSO's Enterprise Risk Management Framework and The IIA's International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing.

The chief audit executive (CAE) has the responsibility to communicate audit results, including residual risks, to senior management. According to IIA Standard 2410 - Criteria for Communicating, the CAE should communicate the engagement’s objectives, scope, conclusions, recommendations, and action plans. Residual risk, being a part of the audit outcome, should be reported at the same time as the audit results to ensure that senior management is fully informed of all aspects of the engagement. This allows senior management to understand the remaining risks after control measures have been applied.References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) - Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing, Standard 2410 - Criteria for Communicating

Internal control questionnaires (ICQs) are useful tools for internal auditors to guide interviews with auditees. They help ensure that all relevant aspects of internal controls are covered systematically during the interview process. While ICQs can help in evaluating the design and existence of controls, they primarily provide a structured format for gathering information from auditees about controls in place, rather than serving as direct audit evidence themselves. Therefore, they aid in the interview process by ensuring comprehensive coverage of control-related inquiries.References: The IIA's International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing, Standard 2201 - Planning Considerations.

A key planning step for internal auditors to establish appropriate engagement objectives is to evaluate management's risk assessment and the internal audit activity's risk assessment. This step ensures that the audit focuses on areas of highest risk and aligns with the organization's risk management framework. By understanding and incorporating the organization's risk priorities, the internal auditors can design their engagements to provide maximum value and assurance regarding the control environment and risk management processes.

References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Standard 2010: Planning

IIA Practice Advisory 2010-2: Using the Risk Management Process in Internal Audit Planning

To prevent the situation where discrepancies identified by the auditor are corrected after being noted, it is essential to preserve the audit evidence. Taking screenshots or extracting tender documents would provide a permanent record of the discrepancies, ensuring that any subsequent changes do not invalidate the auditor's findings. This practice is crucial for maintaining the integrity of the audit evidence and supporting the audit conclusions. Option B is related but not as direct as preserving primary evidence. Options C and D do not address the preservation of evidence effectively.References: The IIA's International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing, Standard 2310 - Identifying Information.

To address the risk of fraud in the cash receipts process, it is essential to ensure that the accounts payable department reconciles all purchasing documents (purchase requisitions, purchase orders, packing slips, and invoices) before making payments. This step helps to detect discrepancies and prevent fraudulent activities, ensuring that payments are made only for legitimate and verified transactions. References:

IIA Standards - 1220: Due Professional Care

IIA Practice Guide - Auditing Accounts Payable: Reducing the Risk of Fraud

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

When an internal auditor identifies a potential control deficiency based on a preliminary survey, such as the lack of established procedures for adding and approving new vendors, the next appropriate step is to gather more detailed information. Interviewing personnel involved in the accounts payable function allows the auditor to understand the context, confirm the accuracy of the questionnaire responses, and gain insights into the potential risks and impacts associated with the observed deficiency. This step is crucial before documenting the issue or planning further audit procedures to ensure the information is accurate and complete.References: The IIA's International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing, Standard 2201 - Planning Considerations.

A risk that is deemed "unacceptable" to the organization is one where the residual risk (the remaining risk after controls are applied) exceeds the organization's risk tolerance level. This means that despite controls in place, the level of risk remains higher than what the organization is willing to accept. Identifying such risks is critical for ensuring appropriate management action to mitigate them further. References:

The IIA’s Practice Guide on Risk Management.

COSO’s Enterprise Risk Management – Integrating with Strategy and Performance.

The recognition element of a typical internal audit report should describe a brief synopsis of the process or area under review. This section provides context and background information about the scope and focus of the audit, helping readers understand the subject matter of the audit and its significance within the organization. It sets the stage for the detailed findings and recommendations that follow in the report.References:

Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (Standards), Standard 2410 – Criteria for Communicating.

The focus of the effect section of the preliminary observations document should be on residual risk. Residual risk is the remaining risk after management has taken action to mitigate the inherent risk with controls and other risk responses. Documenting the effect in terms of residual risk helps in understanding the potential impact of the observed issues on the organization if not addressed.

References:

IIA Standards: 2310 - Identifying Information

IIA Practice Guide: Communicating the Results of an Audit

According to IIA guidance, mentoring relationships can significantly enhance professional development for internal auditors. Informal meetings between the mentor and the mentee allow for more open and flexible interactions, fostering a supportive environment for learning and development. While formal documentation can be useful, the primary value of mentoring often comes from the informal, ongoing dialogue and relationship that supports continuous learning and professional growth.References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) - Practice Guide: Talent Management

Given the time constraint and the need for specialized knowledge in financial markets, inviting a guest auditor from one of the organization's affiliates who has the required expertise is the most appropriate solution. This approach leverages existing internal resources with the necessary skills, which can be more efficient and cost-effective than hiring new staff or outsourcing the engagement. Additionally, it facilitates knowledge sharing and can help build internal audit capacity for future engagements.References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) - Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing, Standard 1210 - Proficiency

Discovery sampling is typically used when testing for fraud, especially when the expected deviation rate is very low. This method is designed to detect at least one occurrence of a specific characteristic (such as fraud) within a given sample size, making it effective for identifying rare but critical issues. It is particularly useful when the auditor suspects that fraud may exist but expects it to be infrequent.References:

Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), Practice Guide – Auditing for Fraud.

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.

According to IIA guidance, monitoring customer quality complaints compared to the prior period to identify vendor issues is least likely to be a key financial control in an organization's accounts payable process. Key financial controls in accounts payable typically focus on preventing and detecting fraud and errors in the payment process, such as requiring approval for vendor changes, monitoring payment amounts, and comparing employee and vendor addresses to prevent fraud. Monitoring customer quality complaints is more relevant to quality control and vendor management rather than financial control.

References:

IIA Standards: 2130 - Control

IIA Practice Guide: Auditing the Accounts Payable Process

The role of the CAE includes ensuring that all significant risks, including those related to health and safety, are properly managed. Even though the chief health and safety officer reports directly to the CEO, the CAE should still coordinate with and review the work of this officer to understand and evaluate the management of health and safety risks. This helps ensure a comprehensive risk management approach within the organization and supports the overall assurance framework. It is not appropriate for the CAE to have no role (Option A), report directly to the regulator (Option C), or hire an external specialist annually without internal coordination (Option D).References:

IIA Standard 2010: Planning.

IIA Practice Guide on Coordinating Risk Management and Assurance.

According to IIA guidance on due professional care, internal auditors should perform thorough and adequate steps to verify the accuracy and legitimacy of transactions. When reviewing cash disbursements, it is essential to check the three-way match among the invoice, purchase order, and receiving report. This ensures that the payment is valid, authorized, and that the goods or services were actually received as ordered. This step is crucial in preventing and detecting errors and fraud, thereby ensuring that the audit findings are reliable and accurate.References:

IIA Standard 1220: Due Professional Care

IIA Practice Guide: Auditing Accounts Payable and Disbursements

When an internal auditor is asked to join a project team to help design controls in a software application, the most appropriate action is to advise the project team on how to develop effective controls. This advisory role ensures that the internal auditor provides expert guidance on control design without becoming directly responsible for implementation, maintaining their independence and objectivity. This approach allows the internal auditor to contribute valuable insights while ensuring that controls are properly integrated into the application.References:

IIA Standard 2120: Risk Management

IIA Practice Guide: Information Technology Controls

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.

When setting the scope for identifying and assessing key risks and controls in a process, developing the scope of the audit based on a bottom-up perspective is the least appropriate approach. A bottom-up perspective typically focuses on individual controls and processes without necessarily aligning with the organization’s critical business objectives and risk appetite. Effective risk assessment should begin with a top-down approach, identifying key business objectives and the associated risks, and then determining the necessary controls to manage these risks. References: IIA Practice Guide – Auditing Key Risk Management, IIA Standard 2200 – Engagement Planning

Step-by-Step Detailed Explanation:

A. To provide a status update on a short engagement to management of the area under review and to the audit supervisor:While useful, this is not the primary purpose of issuing interim reports.

B. To confirm agreement with preliminary observations and conclusions identified during the engagement:Interim reports are not primarily for reaching agreement but for prompt communication of actionable items.

C. To provide those responsible for the area under review with the opportunity to act on certain observations immediately:Correct. Interim reports are issued when there are observations that require immediate action or management’s attention before the final report is issued.

D. To verify that the corrective actions required by senior management are completed as agreed:Verifying corrective actions occurs after final recommendations are implemented, not through interim reporting.

CIA Exam Syllabus Reference:

Domain V: Performing Internal Audit Services – Reporting and Communication.

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.

The data extracted by the internal auditor includes human resources data with employment conditions, payroll data, and entrance logs. With this information, the auditor can identify employees who are getting paid even though their employment has expired. By comparing the employment conditions and expiration dates in the HR data with the payroll data, the auditor can detect discrepancies where individuals continue to receive payments beyond their employment period. Entrance logs can help corroborate these findings by showing the lack of physical presence of these employees, further supporting the identification of ghost employees who no longer work for the organization but still appear on the payroll.

References:

IIA Practice Guide: "Auditing Employee Benefits"

COSO Internal Control – Integrated Framework

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.

A key performance indicator (KPI) that measures effectiveness reflects how well the internal audit activity achieves its objectives and meets stakeholder expectations. Post-engagement surveys completed by management, indicating a "meets or exceeds expectations" rating, directly measure the perceived value and impact of the audit work. This KPI shows whether the internal audit function is providing useful insights, recommendations, and assurance that align with management’s needs and expectations, thus demonstrating the effectiveness of the audit activity.References:

Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), Practice Guide – Measuring Internal Audit Effectiveness and Efficiency.

When dealing with the communication of audit results to external parties, the internal auditor must adhere to IIA standards regarding confidentiality, approval processes, and the appropriate handling of sensitive information.

IIA Standard 2440 – Disseminating Results:

This standard outlines that the chief audit executive (CAE) must approve the communication of engagement results to parties outside the organization. The CAE is responsible for ensuring that the distribution of audit findings is appropriate and does not compromise confidentiality or integrity.

Confidentiality and Authorization:

The internal auditor must protect the confidentiality of the information obtained during the audit. Sharing this information with external parties, such as an advertising agency, should only occur with proper authorization, typically from the CAE.

IIA Code of Ethics – Confidentiality:

The Code of Ethics requires auditors to respect the value and ownership of information they receive and to not disclose information without appropriate authority. In this case, if the audit client requests the report to be shared with an external party, the internal auditor must first obtain approval from the CAE to ensure this disclosure is appropriate.

Option B (May not communicate results): While confidentiality is crucial, the CAE can authorize the sharing of information with external parties if it is deemed appropriate.

Option C (Include instructions for limited distribution): While limiting further distribution is a good practice, the initial sharing still requires the CAE’s approval.

Option D (Verbal communication only): This restricts the auditor unnecessarily. The key is obtaining proper authorization, not limiting the form of communication.

Detailed Explanation:Why Not Other Options?Conclusion: Option A is correct as it ensures that the results can be communicated to the external party with the appropriate approval from the CAE, in line with IIA standards on dissemination and confidentiality.

Management’s action to recoup the duplicate payments made to a vendor is an effect-based action plan because it directly addresses the outcome (the duplicate payment) rather than the underlying cause that allowed the error to occur. An effect-based action plan focuses on correcting the issue's immediate consequences but does not necessarily address the root cause that led to the issue in the first place.

IIA References:

IIA Standard 2500: Monitoring Progress emphasizes that internal auditors should monitor the disposition of audit recommendations. Addressing only the effects of an issue, like in this case, might provide a temporary fix but does not prevent future occurrences if the underlying causes are not identified and corrected.

External benchmarking using trend analysis involves comparing a company's performance metrics with industry standards or averages over a certain period to identify trends and areas for improvement. Comparing common-size financial statements of the subsidiary with the averages of the industry for the last two periods allows for a normalized comparison by expressing financial statement items as a percentage of a common base figure (e.g., total assets or sales). This method highlights the subsidiary's financial structure and performance trends in relation to industry norms, facilitating a comprehensive analysis. References:

"Internal Auditing: Assurance & Advisory Services" (The Institute of Internal Auditors)

"Benchmarking: An Essential Tool for Assessment, Improvement, and Market Leadership" (Michael J. Spendolini)

The step that would accomplish the objective of testing management's identification and prioritization of critical data collected by the organization is to document and test a data inventory and classification program by determining the data classification levels and framework. This involves verifying that management has established a comprehensive data inventory and that data classification processes are in place and effectively implemented. It ensures that data is appropriately categorized based on its criticality and sensitivity, aligning with the organization’s risk management framework and data governance policies.References: IIA's Global Technology Audit Guide (GTAG) on Data Privacy and Protection, which outlines best practices for data classification and management.

According to IIA guidance, a common assurance service performed by the internal audit activity is validating whether employees are following established policies and procedures in various departments, such as procurement. Assurance services involve assessing evidence and providing conclusions regarding the effectiveness of governance, risk management, and control processes. Ensuring compliance with established policies and procedures is a fundamental assurance activity that helps organizations maintain control and mitigate risks.

References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Standard 2130 – Control: "The internal audit activity must assist the organization in maintaining effective controls by evaluating their effectiveness and efficiency and by promoting continuous improvement."

IIA Practice Guide on "Assurance Engagements"

According to the IIA's guidance, internal audit can accept consulting engagements, including providing training, as long as it does not impair their independence and objectivity. In this scenario, the most appropriate action for the chief audit executive (CAE) is to accept the engagement and hire an external specialist to deliver the training. This ensures that the internal audit activity does not compromise its independence by training on areas where they might later need to provide objective assurance. By using an external expert, the CAE ensures the training is conducted by someone with the requisite expertise and without any conflict of interest.

References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (Standards), Standard 1130: Impairment to Independence or Objectivity.

IIA Practice Guide, "Independence and Objectivity."

According to IIA guidance, the chief audit executive (CAE) is directly responsible for establishing the objectives, scope, and plan for each engagement. This responsibility ensures that each audit is properly focused and aligned with the overall goals and risk areas of the organization. While maintaining a quality assurance program and providing professional development opportunities are important, they are not solely the CAE's responsibility without management support. Periodic review and approval of the internal audit charter is typically a joint responsibility with senior management and the board. References:

The IIA’s International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (Standards), Standard 2010 - Planning.

The IIA’s Practice Guide on Developing the Internal Audit Plan.

According to IIA guidance, elements of evaluation reflect a valid principle for the internal audit activity to rely on the work of internal or external assurance providers. This principle involves assessing the competence, objectivity, and performance of the assurance providers to ensure their work can be relied upon. Proper evaluation helps internal auditors determine the extent to which they can use the work of others in forming their conclusions.

References:

IIA Standards: 2050 - Coordination and Reliance

IIA Practice Guide: Reliance by Internal Audit on Other Assurance Providers

In the five-attribute approach to documenting deficiencies, the attribute that answers the question "What should be in place?" is Criteria. Criteria represent the standards, measures, or expectations used in making an evaluation and/or verification (what should be). It defines what the process or control should achieve, serving as a benchmark against which the actual condition (what is) is compared. The criteria are essential for identifying deviations and determining the nature and significance of deficiencies.References: IIA's International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing, Standard 2410 – Criteria for Communicating.

According to IIA guidance, the CAE has the ultimate responsibility for the internal audit activity but may delegate tasks such as reviewing, approving, and signing engagement reports to qualified internal audit staff. This delegation helps in managing workload and leveraging expertise within the team. However, the CAE should still periodically review the reports to maintain oversight and ensure quality. References: = IIA Standard 2060 - Reporting to Senior Management and the Board, and Standard 2400 - Communicating Results.

The organization and content of workpapers should be based on the professional judgment of the internal auditor. Workpapers should provide sufficient detail to support the audit findings and conclusions but do not need to answer every conceivable question. Standard 2330 – Documenting Information states that internal auditors must document relevant information to support the conclusions and engagement results. This allows for flexibility and professional judgment in determining what is necessary and appropriate to include.References:

Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (Standards), Standard 2330 – Documenting Information.

To increase the deterrent effect of a code of business conduct, it should include appropriate descriptions of penalties for misconduct and notifications that violations may lead to criminal prosecution. These elements clearly communicate the serious consequences of unethical behavior, thus reinforcing the importance of adhering to the code. References: = IIA Practice Guide on "Evaluating Ethics-related Programs and Activities".

The appropriate conclusion that can be drawn from the findings is that the internal controls guiding contract management are not operating effectively. The listed findings, such as noncompliance with contract provisions, lack of monitoring compliance with contract obligations and deliverables, and absence of contract agreements with key vendors, indicate significant control deficiencies in the contract management process. These deficiencies suggest that the controls intended to ensure compliance and effective management of contracts are either inadequate or not functioning as intended.References: IIA's Guide on Internal Controls and Audit Findings.

To maintain independence and objectivity, the internal auditor should seek permission to extend the current engagement and obtain approval from the process owner before performing any improvement tasks such as training staff on how to use macros. This ensures that the improvement task is formally acknowledged and approved, maintaining the integrity of the audit process. References: = IIA Standard 1130 - Impairment to Independence or Objectivity and IIA Standard 2410 - Criteria for Communicating.

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.

References:

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

IIA Standard 2320 - Analysis and Evaluation

When a significant finding is noted early during a review of the accounts payable function, the best course of action for communicating the issue is to inform internal accounting management via an interim memorandum update. This allows for timely communication and potential early remediation actions, ensuring that management is aware of the issue and can address it promptly before the final audit report is issued.

References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Standards

Internal Audit Communication and Reporting Protocols

If a significant error or omission is found in the final audit report, it is crucial for the internal audit activity to correct the information and redistribute the corrected report to all original recipients. This ensures that all stakeholders are informed of the accurate findings and can take appropriate actions based on correct information.

IIA References:

IIA Standard 2440: Disseminating Results requires that the internal audit activity communicate accurate and complete results. If an error or omission is identified, the corrected information must be promptly communicated to all relevant parties to maintain the integrity of the audit process.

The Practice Guide on Communicating Results emphasizes that errors in audit reports should be corrected and the revised report should be distributed to ensure stakeholders are acting on accurate information.

According to the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) guidance, organizations have the most influence over the "opportunity" aspect of the fraud triangle. The fraud triangle consists of three elements: pressure, opportunity, and rationalization. While pressure and rationalization are largely influenced by personal and external factors beyond the organization's direct control, opportunity refers to the circumstances that allow fraud to occur, which can be directly managed and controlled by the organization through internal controls, policies, and procedures. References: = IIA's "Managing the Business Risk of Fraud: A Practical Guide" and the IIA's Practice Guide on "Internal Audit's Role in Preventing and Detecting Fraud".

Given the urgency and the lack of internal expertise in forensic investigation, the most effective and immediate solution is to outsource the investigation to independent professional consultants. This approach ensures that the investigation is conducted by individuals with the necessary skills and experience, thereby maintaining the integrity and quality of the investigation. Training internal staff or recruiting new auditors would take time and may not address the immediate need, while declining the engagement would not fulfill the audit committee's request. References:

"Internal Auditing: Assurance & Advisory Services" (The Institute of Internal Auditors)

"Forensic Accounting and Fraud Investigation for Non-Experts" (Howard Silverstone and Michael Sheetz)

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.

References:

COSO Framework

PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 15: Audit Evidence

According to IIA guidance, a newly promoted chief audit executive (CAE) should prioritize the review of audit reports based on the significance of the findings indicated by the opinion statements. A graded positive opinion (1) suggests that the audit found strong controls with no significant issues, while a third-party opinion (4) typically involves external assessments that may not require immediate internal action. Therefore, these opinions would receive the lowest review priority. In contrast, negative assurance opinions (2) and limited assurance opinions (3) indicate potential issues or limitations in the effectiveness of controls, necessitating higher priority review to address any significant concerns promptly. References: IIA Standard 2410 – Criteria for Communicating, IIA Practice Advisory 2410-1

According to IIA guidance, the primary purpose of the exit conference is to ensure timely communication of observations and findings, especially those that require immediate management action. This meeting allows auditors to discuss their findings with management, address any disagreements, and clarify the facts before the final report is issued. It does not require the attendance of both the chief audit executive and the chief executive over the activity (B), nor is it solely for reviewing anticipated results (C) or the performance of the internal auditors (D). References: IIA Standard 2440 – Disseminating Results, IIA Practice Advisory 2440-1

Effective risk management and internal control processes are best exemplified by having relevant risk indicators and mitigation plans in place. This demonstrates that the organization not only identifies and assesses risks but also actively monitors and manages these risks through appropriate mitigation strategies. The presence of risk indicators and mitigation plans indicates a proactive approach to risk management, ensuring that potential issues are addressed before they can impact the organization significantly.

References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Standard 2100 – Nature of Work: "The internal audit activity must evaluate and contribute to the improvement of governance, risk management, and control processes using a systematic and disciplined approach."

COSO Enterprise Risk Management Framework

The flowchart indicates that different individuals are responsible for various stages of the bank reconciliation process. The Treasury Accountant posts payments and performs reconciliations, while the Senior Treasury Accountant obtains and uploads bank statements, and the Treasury Supervisor approves/reviews the reconciliations. This segregation of duties ensures that no single individual has control over all aspects of the financial transaction process, which helps in preventing errors and fraud.References:

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

"Auditing and Assurance Services" by Alvin A. Arens, Randal J. Elder, and Mark S. Beasley

When proposing interim changes to the annual audit plan due to emerging risks, the most appropriate action for the CAE is to communicate with the CEO and present the revised audit plan to the board for approval. This ensures that senior management is informed and supportive of the changes, and that the board, which holds the ultimate oversight responsibility, formally approves the revised plan. References:

The IIA’s International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (Standards), Standard 2020 - Communication and Approval.

The IIA’s Practice Guide on Engagement Planning.

The primary reason for internal auditors to conduct interim communications with management of the area under review is to provide timely discussion of results. This allows management to be informed of preliminary findings and issues as they arise, enabling quicker corrective actions and avoiding surprises in the final report. Interim communications help ensure that audit results are relevant and actionable. References:

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

The IIA’s Practice Guide on Communicating Results.

When significant control issues are identified during a consulting engagement, it is the responsibility of the chief audit executive to ensure that these issues are communicated to senior management and the board. This ensures that the organization is aware of the risks and can take corrective action. Consulting engagements should not overshadow the priority of addressing critical control issues that may affect the organization's risk profile. References:

"International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing" (IIA Standards)

"Internal Auditing: Assurance & Advisory Services" (The Institute of Internal Auditors)

According to IIA guidance, before implementing any changes to the audit program's scope prior to beginning fieldwork, the most important action is to seek approval from the chief audit executive (CAE) for the proposed scope change. This ensures that any significant modifications are reviewed and authorized at the appropriate level, maintaining the integrity and alignment of the audit activity with the organization's audit plan and objectives.

References:

IIA Standards: 2240 - Engagement Work Program

IIA Standards: 2020 - Communication and Approval

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

Probability-proportional-to-size (PPS) sampling, also known as monetary unit sampling, is most appropriate for measuring the total misstatement in an accounts payable ledger. This method is used to determine the likelihood of individual items being selected based on their size, with larger items having a higher probability of being selected. This is particularly useful in identifying overstatements and misstatements in financial records, such as accounts payable, where the monetary value of transactions is a critical factor.References:

Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), Practice Guide – Auditing Sampling.

When estimating the impact of an inherent risk, internal auditors should consider both financial and nonfinancial factors. Financial factors include direct monetary impacts, while nonfinancial factors may include reputational damage, operational disruptions, and compliance issues. Considering a broad range of factors provides a comprehensive understanding of the potential impact of the risk, which is essential for effective risk assessment and management.

References:

Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Standards: Performance Standards 2120: Risk Management

COSO Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) Framework: Risk Assessment and Risk Response Components

According to the International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (Standards) issued by The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), the Chief Audit Executive (CAE) must communicate and obtain approval from the board for significant changes to the audit plan. A corporate merger is a significant event that introduces emerging risks, necessitating an interim adjustment to the audit plan. The CAE's responsibility includes ensuring that the board is informed and approves the revised audit plan to address these new risks adequately.

References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Standard 2020 – Communication and Approval: "The chief audit executive must communicate the internal audit activity’s plans and resource requirements, including significant interim changes, to senior management and the board for review and approval."

Utilizing an external fraud specialist in a suspected fraud investigation offers several advantages, particularly in preserving evidence and maintaining the chain of command. This is crucial for ensuring that the investigation is conducted legally and that any findings can be used in potential legal proceedings.

Expertise in Evidence Handling:

External fraud specialists typically have specific expertise in collecting, preserving, and documenting evidence in a manner that maintains its integrity. This includes maintaining a proper chain of custody, which is essential for legal admissibility.

IIA Practice Guide on Fraud Investigations:

The IIA suggests that involving specialists can enhance the credibility and effectiveness of an investigation. Specialists are trained to handle sensitive evidence and ensure that it is preserved correctly, reducing the risk of contamination or loss.

Chain of Command:

Maintaining a clear and secure chain of command during an investigation is critical. An external specialist is often better equipped to manage this process, ensuring that evidence is not tampered with and that all actions are documented appropriately.

Option A (Increased access to employees): While an external specialist may interview employees, this is not their primary advantage over internal auditors.

Option C (Increased ability to scrutinize processes): Specialists are skilled at this, but the key advantage lies in evidence preservation.

Option D (Increased access to software and data): Access to proprietary data is important, but internal auditors usually have this access as well.

Detailed Explanation:Why Not Other Options?

The IIA Standards require the CAE to communicate risk acceptance that may be unacceptable to senior management and the board. The first step is to discuss the issue with senior management to understand their perspective and potentially resolve the concern. If senior management does not take appropriate action, the CAE must then inform the board to ensure they are aware of the risk and can take necessary action.References:

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

"Internal Auditing: Assurance and Advisory Services" by Urton L. Anderson et al.

When several irregularities are found in the financial information, it is critical to perform an analytical review that provides a broader perspective on the firm's financial health. Comparing the firm's financial performance with organizations in the same industry helps identify anomalies and trends that may indicate irregularities. This benchmarking approach can highlight unusual deviations from industry norms, which may signal errors or potential fraud. References:

"Internal Auditing: Assurance & Advisory Services" (The Institute of Internal Auditors)

"Auditing and Assurance Services" (Messier, Glover, Prawitt)

One of the primary drawbacks of using internal control questionnaires is the risk that management may not provide honest or accurate answers. This can occur due to a variety of reasons, including a lack of knowledge, intentional deception, or a misunderstanding of the questions. As a result, the responses may not accurately reflect the true state of the controls, leading to incomplete or misleading audit conclusions.

References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Practice Guide: Assessing the Adequacy of Risk Management Using ISO 31000

IIA Standard 2310 - Identifying Information

A properly supervised engagement ensures that the audit is conducted effectively, efficiently, and in accordance with IIA standards. The auditor in charge has the responsibility to oversee the audit process and ensure that the engagement objectives are achieved.

IIA Standard 2340 – Engagement Supervision:

This standard requires that engagements be supervised to ensure that objectives are achieved, work is performed according to appropriate standards, and the results are supported by sufficient, relevant, and reliable evidence.

Reasonable Assurance:

The auditor in charge must provide reasonable assurance that the audit engagement's objectives were met. This involves reviewing work performed, ensuring compliance with audit standards, and verifying that conclusions are supported by adequate evidence.

IIA Practice Advisory 2340-1:

The advisory emphasizes the role of the auditor in charge in providing oversight throughout the audit engagement. This includes ensuring that auditors follow procedures, apply professional judgment, and that all significant findings are appropriately addressed.

Option A (Daily record review): While keeping a record is good practice, it does not constitute comprehensive supervision.

Option B (Review by peers): Peer review is useful but does not replace the overarching responsibility of the auditor in charge.

Option C (Accompanying new auditors): This is part of training and guidance but does not alone ensure that engagement objectives are met.

Detailed Explanation:Why Not Other Options?

When a manager reviews a staff auditor's workpapers, the primary goal is to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the audit documentation and to provide feedback for professional development. Discussing the workpaper review results with the staff auditor helps identify any areas for improvement and reinforces best practices, making it a valuable learning opportunity. This collaborative approach promotes continuous improvement and skill development within the audit team.References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) - Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing, Standard 2340 - Engagement Supervision