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

Professional Care: Ensuring that internal auditors demonstrate due professional care involves establishing clear policies and procedures that guide their activities.

Guidance and Standards: These policies and procedures help ensure that the internal audit activity adheres to professional standards and best practices.

Standard Compliance: According to the IIA’s Performance Standard 2040 – Policies and Procedures, the CAE must establish policies and procedures to guide the internal audit activity.

Quality Assurance: Properly developed policies and procedures contribute to the overall quality and effectiveness of the internal audit activity, ensuring that engagements are conducted with due professional care.

The primary reason for audit supervision, including the approval of the engagement report, is to ensure that the findings presented in the report are substantiated by adequate and appropriate evidence. This step is crucial to maintain the credibility and reliability of the audit process and its outcomes.

Substantiation of Findings: Ensuring that findings are substantiated helps in providing a clear and defensible basis for the conclusions and recommendations made in the report.

Audit Quality: This step ensures the quality and integrity of the audit process, confirming that the evidence collected during the audit is sufficient and appropriate to support the findings.

Credibility: By substantiating findings, the report gains credibility, which is essential for the stakeholders who rely on the audit report for decision-making.

When a client decides not to implement recommended process improvements from a consulting engagement, the internal audit activity should confirm the decision with management and document it in the audit file. This approach ensures that the audit trail is complete and that there is a record of management’s acceptance of the associated risks. Escalating the issue to the board (Option A) or initiating an assurance engagement (Option D) might be necessary if the risks are significant, but these actions are not the immediate next steps. Continuous follow-up (Option C) is more relevant to assurance engagements rather than consulting engagements.

IIA Standard 2500: Monitoring Progress.

IIA Practice Guide on Consulting Engagements.

Introduction:

When verifying the validity of activities reported by a grantee, it is essential to gather evidence that the project was executed as intended and within the defined scope.

Effective Verification Methods:

A site visit allows the auditor to observe firsthand the activities and projects funded by the grant, ensuring they align with the grant's objectives and scope.

Options Analysis:

Option A: Visiting the grantee provides direct evidence of the project execution and alignment with the grant scope.

Option B: Verifying the final report against the initial budget request ensures financial compliance but does not confirm actual project activities.

Option C: Reconciling general ledger accounts verifies financial records but not the execution of activities.

Option D: Interviewing corporate affairs employees provides insight but not direct evidence of project execution.

Conclusion:

The best method to confirm the validity of the activities reported by a grantee is to visit the grantee and assess whether the project execution aligns with the defined grant scope.

Internal Audit Standards and Practice Guides .

The most effective step in helping the auditor determine whether fraud exists after observing a double payment transaction on a supplier invoice is to perform data analytics on the supplier's information, invoiced amounts, and payments performed. Data analytics allows the auditor to systematically analyze large volumes of transactions to identify patterns, anomalies, and potential fraudulent activities. This approach is more comprehensive and effective in uncovering fraud than simply extending the audit scope or switching to a fraud investigation engagement without a thorough initial analysis.

IIA Standards: 1220.A1 - Due Professional Care

IIA Practice Guide: Auditing for Fraud

The initial step the CAE should take is to discuss the issue with the members of management responsible for the risk area. This discussion allows the CAE to understand the reasons for the lack of action, provide an opportunity for management to explain their position, and encourage them to implement the necessary mitigation measures. If this discussion does not lead to satisfactory action, the CAE would then escalate the issue to senior management or the board as appropriate.

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.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

Per IIA Standard 1210 – Proficiency, engagements must be performed by auditors with the necessary skills. If resources are not available, the engagement supervisor cannot unilaterally suspend or reassign staff without CAE input. The appropriate action is to escalate the issue to the CAE (D), who has authority to adjust the audit plan, bring in external expertise, or reallocate resources. Option A may not be feasible due to scheduling conflicts. Options B and C prematurely halt the engagement, which undermines assurance delivery. The CAE is responsible for ensuring resource adequacy (per Standard 2030 – Resource Management). Therefore, the engagement supervisor must seek guidance from the CAE.

ï‚· Conducting a documented skills assessment helps in identifying the existing competencies and any gaps within the internal audit team.

 Post-audit surveys can provide feedback on the performance and areas for improvement, which can be used to further refine the skills and competencies of the audit staff (Ref: [16†source])