An Internal auditor accepted a role as an engagement supervisor on a highly specialized and technical engagement for which she did not have the expertise. Which of the following fundamental…

Question

Options

• AObjectivity.
• BConfidentiality.
• CCompetency.

• A
  82% (18)
• B
  5% (1)
• C
  14% (3)

Explanation

Flag: The provided correct answer appears to be wrong.

Based on the IIA's Code of Ethics, the actual correct answer is C. Competency, not A.

The Competency principle requires internal auditors to possess the knowledge, skills, and experience necessary to perform their services. Accepting an engagement supervisor role on a highly specialized engagement without the required expertise is a direct violation of this principle - the auditor lacked the proficiency the role demanded.

Why A (Objectivity) is wrong: Objectivity concerns independence of mind and avoiding conflicts of interest or undue influence on professional judgment. There is no indication her judgment was biased or compromised by external pressure - the issue is a skills gap, not a bias problem.

Why B (Confidentiality) is wrong: Confidentiality requires protecting information acquired during engagements. This scenario involves no disclosure or misuse of information.

Memory tip: Match the violation to its category - Competency = Capability gaps. If an auditor can't do the job (skill/knowledge), think Competency. If an auditor won't stay neutral (bias/conflict), think Objectivity.

Recommendation: Verify this question's answer key against the IIA Code of Ethics directly - answer keys sometimes contain errors, and this one appears to have the wrong answer marked.

No community discussion yet for this question.