IIA-CIA-Part2 Exam Dumps - IIA CIA Questions and Answers

The correct approach aligns with the International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (Standards), particularly Standard 2400: Communicating Results. The auditor must promptly discuss material errors to prevent ongoing misstatements. Immediate correction ensures timely remediation and reduces the risk of material misstatement persisting in the financial records. Additionally, if the error is resolved before the engagement concludes, it may not necessitate inclusion in the final report, as per the guidance on handling material findings (Practice Advisory 2410-1). This approach also demonstrates collaboration and alignment with management, fostering trust.

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.

The primary reason for audit supervision to include the approval of the engagement report is to ensure that the findings and conclusions presented in the report are substantiated by adequate and appropriate evidence. This is critical for maintaining the credibility and reliability of the audit function.

IIA Standard 2340 – Engagement Supervision:

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

Substantiation of Findings:

Approval of the engagement report by the supervisor ensures that the findings and conclusions are not only accurate but also supported by documented evidence. This substantiation is essential for the report to be credible and for the audit to fulfill its purpose.

IIA Practice Advisory 2340-1:

The advisory emphasizes the role of supervisors in reviewing and approving the engagement report to ensure that all findings are well-founded and appropriately supported by the audit evidence.

Option A (Ensure objectives are met): While meeting objectives is important, the primary focus of report approval is to ensure that the findings are substantiated.

Option B (Ensure senior management support): Support from management is necessary, but it should be based on a report that is well-supported by evidence.

Option C (Ensure style and grammar): Style and grammar are secondary considerations; the primary focus should be on the accuracy and substantiation of findings.

Detailed Explanation:Why Not Other Options?Conclusion: Option D is correct because the primary reason for the supervisor’s approval of the engagement report is to ensure that the findings are substantiated by evidence, ensuring the credibility and reliability of the audit report, in line with IIA standards.

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.

According to IIA guidance, if the internal audit activity does not have sufficient time to complete its usual root cause analysis, the chief audit executive (CAE) may recommend that management conduct further work to identify the root cause and address the issue. This approach ensures that the root cause is still identified and addressed without delaying the audit report, maintaining the integrity and usefulness of the audit findings while leveraging management’s resources.

References:

IIA Standards: 2410.A1 - Criteria for Communicating

IIA Practice Guide: Root Cause Analysis

According to IIA guidance, when the internal audit activity investigates potential ethics violations in a foreign subsidiary, communication of any internal ethics violations to external parties may occur, but only with appropriate safeguards. This ensures that sensitive information is protected and that the organization complies with both local and international legal requirements. Cross-cultural differences and local laws must be considered, but the primary focus is on maintaining appropriate safeguards during communication. References: IIA Practice Guide – Auditing Ethics Programs, IIA Standard 2440 – Disseminating Results

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.

One disadvantage of using flowcharts during a risk assessment is that they may not capture serious risks that are not part of the linear process flow. Flowcharts are excellent tools for visualizing processes and identifying control points within a structured workflow. However, they might overlook risks that arise from non-linear interactions, external factors, or complex interdependencies that are not easily represented in a flowchart format. This limitation can result in an incomplete risk assessment if the auditor relies solely on flowcharts without considering other methods to identify all potential risks.References:

Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), Practice Guide – Auditing the Control Environment.

Management action plans should include, at a minimum, an owner of the action plan. The owner is responsible for ensuring that the action plan is implemented and for overseeing the corrective measures. This accountability is crucial for effective follow-up and resolution of audit findings.

References:

IIA Standards: 2500 - Monitoring Progress

IIA Practice Guide: Follow-up Process in the Internal Audit Activity