IIA-CIA-Part2 Exam - Topic 4 Question 88 Discussion

Actual exam question for IIA's IIA-CIA-Part2 exam

Question #: 88
Topic #: 4

An internal audit activity has to confirm the validity of the activities reported by a grantee that received a charitable contribution from the organization. Which of the following methods would best help meet this objective?

AVisiting the grantee to assess whether the execution of the project was in line with the defined grant scope.

BVerifying that the grantee's final report is in line with what was depicted in the initial budget request.

CReconciling general ledger accounts used by management of the area under review for reflecting expenses on charitable contributions.

DInterviewing employees of the corporate affairs department, which is responsible for charitable activities.
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.
Detailed Explanation:
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.
Why Not Other Options?
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.
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.

Show Suggested Answer

Suggested Answer: A

by Dean at Sep 12, 2024, 09:16 PM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium IIA-CIA-Part2 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel

Earnestine

3 months ago

Totally with A! Firsthand evidence is key!

upvoted 0 times

...

Wilda

3 months ago

C feels too focused on numbers, not the actual work done.

upvoted 0 times

...

Rory

4 months ago

Wait, how can we trust the grantee's report if we don't visit?

upvoted 0 times

...

Eric

4 months ago

B seems more reliable to me, just check the reports.

upvoted 0 times

...

King

4 months ago

Definitely A! Nothing beats seeing it in person.

upvoted 0 times

...

Barrett

4 months ago

I feel like reconciling general ledger accounts is more about finances than actual project execution. It might not help confirm if the grantee is doing what they promised.

upvoted 0 times

...

Adelle

4 months ago

I practiced a question similar to this, and I think interviewing employees could be useful, but it feels like it wouldn't provide the direct evidence we need.

upvoted 0 times

...

Leonardo

5 months ago

I'm not entirely sure, but I think comparing the final report to the initial budget might not give the full picture. It could miss some details about what actually happened.

upvoted 0 times

...

Casie

5 months ago

I remember we discussed the importance of direct observation in audits. Visiting the grantee seems like the best way to confirm their activities.

upvoted 0 times

...

Elke

5 months ago

I think I'd be leaning towards option B or C. Verifying the final report against the initial budget, or reconciling the general ledger accounts, seems like it could give you a good overview of the financial aspects. But you make a good point, Selene, that visiting the grantee is probably the most reliable approach overall.

upvoted 0 times

...

Veronika

5 months ago

Option A is definitely the way to go here. Visiting the grantee and observing the project firsthand is the most effective way to verify the validity of their reported activities. The other options just don't provide the same level of direct evidence.

upvoted 0 times

...

Mitsue

5 months ago

Hmm, I'm a bit unsure about this one. The options seem quite similar, and I'm not sure which one would be the best approach. I might need to re-read the question and think through the pros and cons of each method.

upvoted 0 times

...

Selene

5 months ago

This seems like a straightforward question. I would go with option A - visiting the grantee to directly assess the project execution. That provides the most reliable evidence to confirm the validity of the reported activities.

upvoted 0 times

...

Donte

5 months ago

Hmm, I'm a bit unsure here. I was thinking option D - communicating the project schedule - might also be a good approach to set expectations upfront. But I can see how assessing the culture could help identify potential roadblocks.

upvoted 0 times

...

Kiley

1 year ago

I mean, why would you not want to see the project in action? Visiting the grantee is like going on a field trip, but with a purpose - and a lot less juice boxes.

upvoted 0 times

...

Alisha

1 year ago

Option A all the way! Hands-on verification is the only way to ensure the grantee is following through on their promises. Anything else is just a shot in the dark.

upvoted 0 times

Paulene

1 year ago

Visiting the grantee gives us firsthand insight into their project execution.

upvoted 0 times

...

Eliz

1 year ago

Absolutely, direct observation provides the most reliable evidence.

upvoted 0 times

...

Ma

1 year ago

I agree, visiting the grantee is the best way to confirm their activities.

upvoted 0 times

...

Adria

1 year ago

I'm not sure, I think reconciling general ledger accounts could also be helpful.

upvoted 0 times

...

Nadine

1 year ago

I agree with you, Rodolfo. Visiting the grantee provides direct evidence of their activities.

upvoted 0 times

...

Felton

1 year ago

Visiting the grantee is definitely the way to go! You can't just rely on financial records or secondhand information. Gotta get out there and see it for yourself.

upvoted 0 times

Alethea

1 year ago

Direct observation provides the highest level of assurance regarding the validity of reported activities.

upvoted 0 times

...

Charlie

1 year ago

Visiting the grantee allows auditors to observe and verify the actual execution of the project.

upvoted 0 times

...

Cruz

1 year ago

I agree. It's important to ensure that charitable contributions are being used as intended.

upvoted 0 times

...

Sarah

1 year ago

Absolutely! Visiting the grantee gives you firsthand evidence of their activities.

upvoted 0 times

...

Rodolfo

1 year ago

I think the best method is to visit the grantee and assess the project execution.

upvoted 0 times

...