Certified Internal Auditor (CIA) Practice Test

Why should an internal auditor not perform an assurance review of the accounts payable section they previously supervised?

1. Independence cannot be determined

2. At least 1 year should have elapsed

3. After the next external auditors' review

4. Until responsibilities are clear

The correct answer is: At least 1 year should have elapsed

In the context of internal auditing, maintaining independence and objectivity is crucial to the integrity of the audit process. When an internal auditor has previously supervised an area, such as accounts payable, they may have biases or conflicts that could compromise their ability to conduct an impartial review. Therefore, allowing a certain period—typically one year—before performing an assurance review is a widely accepted practice. This timeframe helps to mitigate any potential influence that the auditor's prior supervisory role might have on their evaluation. This practice underscores the importance of upholding the independence necessary for an effective audit. It ensures that the auditor can approach the review with a fresh perspective, free from preconceived notions or prior decisions made during supervision. In the case of other answer options, while independence is certainly a concern, the stipulation of a specific time frame is a recognized way to manage that independence effectively. The other responses do not address the need for a designated waiting period, which is why the mention of at least one year provides the most relevant rationale for the scenario presented.