Free IIA-CIA-Part2 Questions Attempt

by a grantee that received a charitable contribution, the most effective method is to visit the grantee and directly assess whether the project execution aligns with the scope defined in the grant. This method provides firsthand evidence of the grantee’s activities and ensures that the charitable contributions are used as intended.

IIA Standard 2310 – Identifying Information:

This standard requires that internal auditors gather sufficient, reliable, relevant, and useful information to achieve the engagement objectives. Visiting the grantee allows auditors to observe and verify the actual execution of the project, which provides the most direct and reliable evidence.

Field Visits:

Conducting a site visit enables auditors to see the project in action, interview relevant personnel, and compare actual activities to what was promised in the grant proposal. This method helps ensure that the grantee is fulfilling its obligations and that the organization’s charitable funds are being used effectively.

Direct Evidence:

Direct observation of the grantee’s activities provides the highest level of assurance regarding the validity of the reported activities. This aligns with IIA’s emphasis on obtaining the best available evidence to support audit findings.

Option B (Verifying final report vs. initial budget): This only compares reports, which might not accurately reflect the actual activities conducted by the grantee.

Option C (Reconciling general ledger accounts): This focuses on financial records, which may not provide sufficient detail about the actual activities conducted.

Option D (Interviewing corporate affairs employees): While informative, this method only provides secondhand information and does not directly verify the grantee’s activities.

Detailed Explanation:Why Not Other Options?Conclusion: Option A is correct because visiting the grantee provides the most reliable and direct evidence that the activities are in line with the grant’s defined scope, ensuring the validity of the grantee’s reported activities.

When preparing a detailed risk assessment during engagement planning, the internal auditor should collaborate with the management of the function being reviewed. Management has the most in-depth knowledge of their business objectives, processes, and the associated risks. This cooperation ensures that the risk assessment is comprehensive, accurate, and relevant to the specific context of the function under review. It also helps in identifying any potential areas of concern that might not be evident to external parties.

References:

IIA Standard 2201: "Planning Considerations"

IIA Practice Guide: "Assessing the Adequacy of Risk Management Processes"

The chief audit executive (CAE) should prioritize risks to be used for the audit plan. Although the CAE is not accountable for managing risks, he is responsible for ensuring that the internal audit activity provides assurance on the effectiveness of the risk management processes. The CAE must understand the organization's risk landscape and determine which areas require audit attention based on their significance and potential impact. References: IIA Standard 2010 – Planning, IIA Practice Guide – Coordinating Risk Management and Assurance

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.

References:

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

IIA Standard 2310 - Identifying Information