Helping Hand Questions for IIA-CIA-Part2

The most reliable assurance comes from findings that demonstrate both the identification of issues and the effectiveness of corrective actions. In the provided scenarios, the accounts payable audit (2) and the cash handling process audit (4) illustrate instances where issues were identified, and actions were either needed (2) or taken promptly (4), thus providing a clear basis for forming an opinion on internal control adequacy. References: = IIA Standard 2410 - Criteria for Communicating and Standard 2500 - Monitoring Progress.

When an internal auditor is unable to find supporting documentation for selected accounts during a test, the appropriate next step is to contact management to determine if the documentation is stored elsewhere. This ensures that all potential sources of evidence are explored before drawing any conclusions.

IIA Standard 2310 – Identifying Information:

This standard requires auditors to obtain sufficient, reliable, relevant, and useful information to support their findings. If documentation is missing, the auditor must investigate further to determine if the evidence exists in another location or form.

Contacting Management:

Before concluding that the test failed or expanding the sample, the auditor should first check with management to see if the documentation might be stored in an alternative location. This step ensures that the audit results are based on a thorough and complete examination of available evidence.

IIA Practice Advisory 2330.A1-1:

The advisory suggests that auditors should consider all sources of evidence and confirm with management if there are any alternative ways to obtain the necessary information.

Option A (Conclude that the test failed): This conclusion would be premature without first attempting to locate the missing documentation.

Option B (Select new accounts): This could lead to the same issue if the documentation is not missing but simply stored elsewhere.

Option C (Expand the sample size): Expanding the sample is unnecessary if the issue is simply that the documentation is stored in a different place.

Detailed Explanation:Why Not Other Options?Conclusion: Option D is correct because it involves taking the logical next step of contacting management to locate the missing documentation, ensuring that the audit is thorough and the conclusions drawn are based on all available evidence, in line with IIA standards.

Identify the Conflict of Interest: The internal auditor learns about a large loan made to another auditor's relative, which represents a conflict of interest.

Refer to Professional Standards: According to the Institute of Internal Auditors' (IIA) standards, an internal auditor must maintain objectivity and avoid conflicts of interest (IIA Standard 1100 – Independence and Objectivity).

Escalate the Issue: The appropriate course of action is to escalate this matter to the chief audit executive (CAE) and management, as they are responsible for determining the impact of the conflict and the appropriate response.

Decision Making: The CAE and management will assess whether the conflict of interest could impair the auditor's objectivity and decide whether the auditor should be removed from the engagement or if additional oversight is needed.

Documentation: It is important to document the conflict and the decision-making process in the audit documentation for transparency and accountability.

Application software tracing and mapping tracks the program logic line by line to detect unauthorized code, errors, or inconsistencies. Utility software (A) supports system operations, generalized audit software (B) is used for testing data, and audit expert systems (D) assist with decision-making. For identifying unauthorized code, the best tool is Option C.