IIA-CIA-Part2 Exam Dumps - Practice of Internal Auditing

For internal audit findings and recommendations to be effectively implemented and to ensure that they receive adequate consideration, formal follow-up procedures are essential. According to IIA guidance, it is important that the internal audit activity not only reports the results to management but also ensures that corrective actions are taken or that management consciously accepts the associated risks.

IIA Standard 2500 – Monitoring Progress:

This standard requires that the chief audit executive (CAE) establish a process to monitor and ensure that management actions are effectively implemented or that risks are appropriately accepted. Follow-up is crucial for verifying that management has taken the recommended actions or has acknowledged and accepted the risk of not doing so.

Formal Follow-Up Procedures:

These procedures involve tracking the status of management's responses to audit recommendations, checking if actions were implemented as planned, and determining whether the intended outcomes were achieved. If management decides not to act, the CAE must ensure that the decision is documented and the associated risks are understood and accepted by senior management.

IIA Practice Advisory 2500-1:

This advisory emphasizes the importance of follow-up to ensure that significant audit findings and recommendations are addressed. Without this follow-up, there is a risk that important issues might be neglected or forgotten.

Option A (Reporting results with recommendations): While reporting is important, it does not ensure that recommendations are acted upon.

Option C (Quarterly reporting on audit plan focus): This is related to audit planning, not to ensuring that specific findings and recommendations are considered.

Option D (Discussing findings with independent auditors): This might be useful, but it does not directly influence whether management considers and acts on the internal audit findings.

Detailed Explanation:Why Not Other Options?

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.

IIA Standard 2440: "Disseminating Results"

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

Per Standard 2330 – Documenting Information, workpapers must be sufficient, reliable, relevant, and useful. Irrelevant workpapers that do not support engagement objectives should not be retained, as they clutter documentation and weaken audit quality. The supervisor should ensure that only workpapers directly tied to objectives are included, which makes Option A correct.

Discovery sampling is a statistical sampling method that is specifically designed for detecting fraud or other irregularities. It is most appropriate when the auditor expects that deviations or fraud may be rare but significant if found.

Discovery Sampling:

Discovery sampling is used when the auditor is trying to identify at least one occurrence of a particular event, such as fraud. The sample is designed so that if a single error is found, it suggests that more may exist within the population, warranting further investigation.

Application in Fraud Detection:

Discovery sampling is effective in fraud detection because it focuses on identifying whether any instances of fraud exist within a population. This approach is well-suited for situations where even a small number of fraudulent transactions could have a significant impact.

IIA Practice Guide on Statistical Sampling:

The IIA suggests that discovery sampling is appropriate when the goal is to find the presence of an error or fraud, particularly in populations where such occurrences are expected to be infrequent.

Option B (Stop-or-go sampling): This method is used to control the risk of over-auditing when errors are expected to be low, but it is not specifically designed for fraud detection.

Option C (Haphazard sampling): This is a non-statistical sampling method and is not appropriate for systematic fraud detection.

Option D (Stratified attribute sampling): This method divides the population into subgroups but is not specifically aimed at discovering fraud.

Detailed Explanation:Why Not Other Options?Conclusion: Option A is correct because discovery sampling is the most appropriate statistical method for testing a population for fraud, as it is designed to detect even a small number of significant deviations, consistent with IIA guidance.

A periodic report from the chief audit executive (CAE) to the board typically includes information about the internal audit activity's purpose, authority, responsibility, and performance relative to the audit plan. This report ensures that the board is kept informed about the internal audit activity’s alignment with organizational goals, its independence, and any significant issues or deviations from the plan.

IIA References:

IIA Standard 2060: Reporting to Senior Management and the Board requires the CAE to report periodically to the board on the internal audit activity’s purpose, authority, responsibility, and performance relative to its plan. This standard ensures that the board has a clear understanding of how the internal audit activity is fulfilling its role.

The Practice Guide on Effective Communication with the Board recommends that the CAE provide regular updates on the internal audit activity’s progress against its plan and any significant issues that require the board’s attention.

Risk Assessment Process: A risk assessment process is essential for identifying, analyzing, and managing risks that could prevent the achievement of objectives. It is a critical component in developing an effective system of internal controls.

Importance: Without a risk assessment, organizations cannot effectively design controls that address relevant risks.

COSO Framework: The Committee of Sponsoring Organizations (COSO) Internal Control Framework outlines risk assessment as a fundamental part of internal control systems.

Components: The framework includes risk assessment, control activities, information and communication, monitoring activities, and the control environment.

Other Preconditions:

Monitoring Process: Important for evaluating the effectiveness of internal controls but not the initial step.

Strategic Objective-Setting Process: Critical for overall organizational success but does not directly develop internal controls.

Information and Communication Process: Supports internal controls by ensuring relevant information is communicated but follows the identification of risks.

COSO Internal Control Framework.

Promoting objectivity in internal auditing involves ensuring that auditors avoid conflicts of interest and maintain independence in both fact and appearance. Policies that clearly define and give examples of inappropriate business relationships help auditors understand and avoid situations that could impair their objectivity.

IIA Standard 1120 (Individual Objectivity) emphasizes the importance of internal auditors maintaining an unbiased mindset and avoiding conflicts of interest.

Preliminary communication with HR management is essential to ensure a smooth audit process. According to IIA guidance, the auditor in charge (AIC) should notify HR management before the planning stage begins to facilitate cooperation and alignment. Additionally, scheduling formal status meetings at the start of the engagement helps in setting expectations, clarifying the scope, and ensuring ongoing communication throughout the audit process. These steps foster transparency and collaboration. References:

IIA Standards - 2200: Engagement Planning

IIA Practice Advisory - 2200-1: Engagement Planning