Free IIA IIA-CIA-Part2 Practice Exam with Questions & Answers | Set: 2

The most critical situation for the chief audit executive (CAE) to report to the board is the disagreement with the business unit manager's initial decision to accept a particular risk, which was only addressed after discussion with senior management. This situation is critical because it involves a risk that was initially accepted without proper mitigation, which could have significant implications for the organization. Reporting this to the board ensures that they are aware of potential disagreements regarding risk acceptance and management's approach to risk mitigation.

IIA Standards: 2060 - Reporting to Senior Management and the Board

IIA Practice Guide: Reporting to the Board and Senior Management

In this situation, the internal auditor has identified a significant risk related to the failure to maintain air quality monitoring equipment. Since the CEO and the manager have acknowledged the risk but decided not to take corrective action due to cost concerns, the chief audit executive (CAE) should escalate the issue to the board. This step is necessary to ensure that the board is fully informed of the potential regulatory and reputational risks.

IIA Standard 2600 – Communicating the Acceptance of Risks:

This standard requires the CAE to communicate to senior management and the board when management has accepted a level of risk that the CAE believes is unacceptable. The board needs to be made aware of the situation to ensure they can take appropriate action if needed.

Risk Communication:

The CAE’s responsibility includes ensuring that all significant risks are communicated to the highest level of the organization. In this case, the potential for regulatory sanctions and reputational damage due to inaccurate air quality monitoring is a significant risk that the board should be aware of.

IIA Practice Advisory 2600-1:

The advisory emphasizes that when the CAE believes that management has accepted a level of risk that could be detrimental to the organization, it is the CAE’s duty to escalate the matter to the board.

Option A (Implement corrective actions): It is not the CAE's role to implement corrective actions; this responsibility lies with management.

Option C (Discuss with external auditors): While external auditors can provide additional perspectives, the CAE should directly communicate significant risks to the board.

Option D (Contact the regulatory agency): This is an extreme step that should only be considered if the organization fails to address the issue after internal escalation.

Detailed Explanation:Why Not Other Options?

The internal audit charter is a formal document that defines the internal audit activity's purpose, authority, and responsibility. It is crucial for establishing the internal audit function's independence and objectivity. When the internal audit charter is properly drafted and approved by the appropriate parties, it provides a clear mandate for the internal audit activity and sets the foundation for its operations. This ensures that the internal audit activity can function independently without undue influence from management.

According to the IIA's International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (Standards), specifically Standard 1000 (Purpose, Authority, and Responsibility), the internal audit charter is essential in defining the internal audit activity's role and ensuring its independence​​.

During planning, auditors gather information about processes and controls. While management (A) provides oversight and external auditors (C) focus on financial reporting controls, employees who perform the daily tasks (B) have the most accurate, detailed, and current knowledge of how processes and controls actually operate. The board (D) provides governance, not operational detail.

According to the CIA study materials, in small audit functions where one person conducts the engagement, a checklist ensures that tasks are documented and provides a record of completion. This creates a reliable audit trail and supports supervisory review (per Standard 2330 – Documenting Information).

Option A does not apply since only one auditor is involved.

Option B is incorrect because checklists are not primarily for business representatives.

Option C is incorrect: prior audit results would be found in past reports, not a checklist.

Therefore, the primary benefit in this scenario is retention of an audit trail (Option D).

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.

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.

 Inherent Risk: Inherent risk refers to the exposure to risk in its natural state, without considering any controls or mitigation measures. It is the risk that exists before any action is taken to manage it.

Example: In the scenario of a snow removal company, the significant reduction in annual snowfall represents an inherent risk as it is a natural condition that affects the company's operations.

 Other Risk Types:

Residual Risk: This is the risk that remains after controls and mitigation strategies have been applied.

Net Risk: Similar to residual risk, it is the risk that remains after considering existing controls.

Accepted Risk: This is the risk that the organization knowingly accepts after evaluating its impact and likelihood.

 Scenario Planning: The exercise of considering the impacts of reduced snowfall helps the company understand its inherent risks and prepare for potential adverse outcomes.

During the planning phase of an assurance engagement, one of the key supervisory activities is approving the audit work programs. This step ensures that the planned procedures are appropriate for achieving the engagement objectives and that the audit scope is adequately covered. Supervisory activities like ensuring alignment with engagement objectives, reviewing draft reports, and ensuring workpapers support findings typically occur during the fieldwork or reporting phases. Approving the audit work programs at the planning stage helps to ensure that the engagement is well-directed and thorough.

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) - Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing, Standard 2200 - Engagement Planning

According to IIA guidance, sufficient and reliable information is characterized by the ability to reach consistent audit conclusions regardless of who performs the audit. This means that the information collected during the audit is adequate, factual, and well-documented so that different auditors would be able to draw the same conclusions based on the evidence. Consistency in audit conclusions enhances the reliability and credibility of the audit process.

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Practice Guide: Quality Assurance and Improvement Program

IIA Standard 2310 - Identifying Information

IIA Standard 2330 - Documenting Information

The chief audit executive should give the most consideration to the organization's risk management policy when communicating an identified unacceptable risk to management. The risk management policy outlines the organization's approach to managing risk, including risk tolerance levels, risk appetite, and the procedures for identifying, assessing, and mitigating risks. By aligning the communication with the risk management policy, the CAE ensures that the discussion about unacceptable risk is framed within the context of the organization's established risk management framework, facilitating a more structured and effective response from management.

The IIA's International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing, Standard 2010 - Planning and COSO's Enterprise Risk Management Framework.

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.

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

IIA Standard 2310 - Identifying Information

The engagement work program is primarily based on the scope and audit objectives of the engagement. The work program outlines the specific procedures to be followed during the audit to achieve the defined objectives within the scope of the engagement. It serves as a detailed plan that guides the audit team in their work, ensuring that all necessary areas are covered.

IIA References:

IIA Standard 2240: Engagement Work Program states that internal auditors must develop and document work programs that achieve the engagement objectives. These work programs are directly tied to the scope and objectives of the audit, which determine the nature and extent of audit procedures.

The Practice Guide on Engagement Planning explains that the work program should be designed to address the key risks and objectives identified during the planning phase, ensuring that the audit is comprehensive and focused on the most critical areas.

The chief audit executive (CAE) is responsible for the approval of the engagement objectives and scope. While the head of customer service and other stakeholders may provide input, it is ultimately the CAE's responsibility to ensure that the engagement aligns with the internal audit plan and meets the organization's overall objectives. The CAE's approval ensures the independence and objectivity of the internal audit function.

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

IIA Standard 2200 - Engagement Planning

When an internal auditor discovers an issue such as a programming error allowing multiple accounts for a single address, the auditor should ensure that the corrective actions are both adequate and effective. This includes scheduling a follow-up review (1) to verify that the program has been corrected and that the accounts have been consolidated. Additionally, evaluating the adequacy and effectiveness of the corrective action proposed by management (2) is essential to ensure the issue has been resolved properly. References: = IIA Standard 2500 - Monitoring Progress and IIA Standard 2320 - Analysis and Evaluation.