Q: 10
Nine months ago, an employee who was responsible for collections in the accounts receivables
department joined the internal audit team. There is an accounts receivables assurance audit
scheduled as part of this year's approved audit plan, which will include a review of the collections
unit. With the knowledge and experience of this individual in the area, which of the following is the
best approach for the chief audit executive (CAE) to take?
Options
Discussion
Option B, official guide covers IIA standards on independence for stuff like this.
Honestly, IIA wants zero perceived conflict, so probably B here.
B , letting them join the audit team would still be a conflict since it's been less than a year. A is tricky but still a trap.
Yeah, it's B. Too soon since leaving collections, objectivity would be compromised if they're involved in this audit at all.
I don't think A is right since even helping with planning could still risk their objectivity. B aligns with IIA standards about independence - if it's been less than a year, they shouldn't be involved at all. C and D both miss that point. Seen similar questions on practice sets, pretty sure B is what they're after here. Agree?
Not C or D-those let the ex-collections person stay involved, which risks independence. I think B matches IIA standards best since waiting at least a year helps with objectivity. A looks tempting but still a trap if they're involved at all.
C/D? C looks like a trap because just reviewing after the fact doesn't solve objectivity concerns, but I'm not sure D is any better. I'd probably go with C but open to other views.
It’s B here. Since the auditor worked in collections less than a year ago, there's a clear independence and objectivity risk if they participate in this audit. Even just helping plan could be seen as biased. Pretty sure the IIA standards would require removing them from this engagement entirely. Anyone see it differently?
Be respectful. No spam.
