IIA Updated IIA-CIA-Part2 Exam Questions and Answers by ziggy

According to the International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing, the CAE must be kept informed of significant issues and deficiencies that are not addressed by management. Standard 2600 - Communicating the Acceptance of Risks requires the CAE to report any situation where management has accepted a level of risk that may be unacceptable to the organization. If the engagement supervisor learns that agreed-upon remedial actions have not been implemented, the CAE needs to be notified to determine further steps, ensuring that risks are managed appropriately and in alignment with the organization's risk tolerance. This response aligns with the internal audit function's responsibility to follow up on management's corrective actions.References: The IIA's International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing, Standard 2600 - Communicating the Acceptance of Risks.

Review notes are a tool used by engagement supervisors to ensure that audit workpapers and related documents are accurate, complete, and in line with auditing standards. According to the IIA's International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing, these notes are part of the supervisory process, designed to improve the quality of the audit engagement.

IIA Standard 2340 – Engagement Supervision:

This standard emphasizes that audit engagements must be properly supervised to ensure that objectives are achieved, work is performed according to appropriate standards, and the results are supported by sufficient evidence. Review notes are part of this supervisory process.

Clearing Review Notes:

Once the concerns raised by the engagement supervisor are addressed, review notes serve their purpose and can be removed from the final documentation. This is standard practice, as the final workpapers should reflect only the resolved and agreed-upon findings and conclusions.

Documentation and Record Retention:

According to the IIA's standards, while it’s essential to document that supervision took place, the specific review notes themselves do not need to be retained once the issues are resolved. The documentation should reflect the final outcome of the review process, ensuring that the audit work is thoroughly vetted.

IIA Practice Advisory 2330.A1-1:

This advisory highlights that workpapers should be complete, and clearing review notes helps in maintaining clarity and reducing unnecessary clutter in the final audit documentation.

Option B: This option suggests that management must address the review notes, which is incorrect. The engagement supervisor's notes are meant for the audit team, not management.

Option C: This option implies that the chief audit executive must sign the review notes, which is not a requirement by the IIA standards. The CAE ensures overall supervision but does not need to sign each review note.

Option D: While review notes do demonstrate supervision, they do not need to be retained after the concerns have been addressed.

Detailed Explanation:Why Not Other Options?Conclusion: Option A is correct because it reflects the best practice of clearing review notes once they have fulfilled their purpose during the audit process, aligning with IIA guidelines.

When developing the work program for an engagement reviewing an organization’s small contracting services, the chief audit executive (CAE) should consider the organization's recent changes to how it processes payments. Changes in payment processing can significantly impact the control environment and may introduce new risks or control gaps. Understanding these changes will help the CAE design appropriate audit procedures to evaluate the effectiveness of the controls over the new processes.

References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Practice Guide: Developing the Internal Audit Strategic Plan

IIA Standard 2200 - Engagement Planning

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.