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

Valid closure of an audit observation requires evidence that the corrected process will function as expected in the future. This involves not just addressing the immediate condition but also ensuring that the root cause has been addressed and that the implemented corrective actions are sustainable and effective in preventing recurrence. This ensures that the underlying issue has been resolved comprehensively. References:

The IIA’s International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (Standards), Standard 2500 - Monitoring Progress.

The IIA’s Practice Guide on Audit Follow-up.

The focus of the effect section of the preliminary observations document should be on residual risk. Residual risk is the remaining risk after management has taken action to mitigate the inherent risk with controls and other risk responses. Documenting the effect in terms of residual risk helps in understanding the potential impact of the observed issues on the organization if not addressed.

References:

IIA Standards: 2310 - Identifying Information

IIA Practice Guide: Communicating the Results of an Audit

When identifying audit resource requirements, the chief audit executive (CAE) should consider approaching an external service provider to conduct internal audits in areas where the organization lacks the necessary skills (2). This ensures that audits are conducted by individuals with the appropriate expertise. Additionally, communicating to senior management a summary report on the status and adequacy of audit resources (4) keeps them informed about the internal audit activity's capacity and any resource constraints. Considering employees from other operational areas as audit resources (1) could compromise objectivity and independence, while suggesting deferral of audits (3) is generally not advisable as it might leave significant risks unaddressed. References: IIA Standard 2030 – Resource Management, IIA Practice Advisory 2030-1

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.