Skip to main content

Ananth Seetharaman

Title: Chair

Department: Accounting

College: College of Business

Curriculum Vitae

Curriculum Vitae Link

Education

  • MS, Georgia State University, 1991
    Major: Taxation
  • PhD, Georgia State University, 1991
    Major: Accounting
  • MBA, Georgia State University, 1990
    Major: Business Administration

Current Scheduled Teaching

ACCT 5780.001Professional Exam CompetencySpring 2025
ACCT 5780.001Professional Exam CompetencyFall 2024 Syllabus
Texas Education Code 51.974 (HB 2504) requires each institution of higher education to make available to the public, a syllabus for undergraduate lecture courses offered for credit by the institution.

Previous Scheduled Teaching

ACCT 4300.001Federal Income TaxationSummer 5W1 2024 Syllabus SPOT
ACCT 5780.001Professional Exam CompetencySpring 2024 Syllabus SPOT
ACCT 4300.002Federal Income TaxationFall 2023 Syllabus SPOT
ACCT 4300.001Federal Income TaxationSummer 5W1 2023 Syllabus SPOT
ACCT 5780.001Professional Exam CompetencySpring 2023 SPOT
ACCT 5780.001Professional Exam CompetencySpring 2022 SPOT
ACCT 5780.002Professional Exam CompetencySpring 8W2 2022
ACCT 5780.001Professional Exam CompetencyFall 2021 SPOT
ACCT 5780.001Professional Exam CompetencySpring 2021 SPOT
ACCT 5780.001Professional Exam CompetencyFall 2020 SPOT
ACCT 5780.001Professional Exam CompetencySpring 2020
ACCT 5780.001Professional Exam CompetencyFall 2019 SPOT
ACCT 4300.001Federal Income TaxationSpring 2019 Syllabus SPOT
ACCT 5780.001Professional Exam CompetencySpring 2019 SPOT
ACCT 6950.709Doctoral DissertationSpring 2018
ACCT 4300.001Federal Income TaxationSpring 2018 Syllabus SPOT
ACCT 6950.709Doctoral DissertationFall 2017
ACCT 4300.001Federal Income TaxationSpring 2017 Syllabus SPOT
ACCT 6900.716Special ProblemsFall 2016
Texas Education Code 51.974 (HB 2504) requires each institution of higher education to make available to the public, a syllabus for undergraduate lecture courses offered for credit by the institution.

Published Intellectual Contributions

    Journal Article

  • Seetharaman, A., Bandla, M.N. (2022). CPA Townhall: How to generate exam awareness early on. Journal Of Accountancy. (May 10, 2022) AICPA. https://www.journalofaccountancy.com/newsletters/extra-credit/cpa-townhall-generate-exam-awareness-early.html?fbclid=IwAR1yfdmCWhQt37pFSql1JlBnWXC7Ebojf7cIysNxoAfS_84GFucQH_2grnE
  • Seetharaman, A., Jia, Y., Wang, F., Sun, Y. (2022). Relative Performance Goals and Management Earnings Guidance. Journal of Business Ethics. Springer Science+Business Media. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-022-05084-3#citeas
  • Seetharaman, A., Guragai, B., Adhikari, S. (2020). Market Response to Audited Internal Control Weakness Disclosures. Journal of Forensic Accounting Research. 5 (1) 2-20. American Accounting Association.
  • Seetharaman, A., Chakrabarty, B., Swanson, Z., Wang, F. (2018). Management risk incentives and the readability of corporate disclosures. Financial Management. 47 (3) 583-616. Wiley.
  • Chakrabarty, B., Seetharaman, A., Wang, W. (2014). Institutional versus retail trades following financial restatements: The effect of Sarbanes-Oxley. Research in Accounting Regulation. 26 (1) 12-25. Elsevier BV. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.racreg.2014.02.002
  • Seetharaman, A., Wang, X.(., Zhang, S.(. (2014). An Empirical Analysis of the Effects of Accounting Expertise in Audit Committees on Non-GAAP Earnings Exclusions. Accounting Horizons. 28 (1) 17-37. American Accounting Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.2308/acch-50584
  • Bansal, N., Seetharaman, A., Wang, X.(. (2013). Managerial risk-taking incentives and non-GAAP earnings disclosures. 9 (1) 100-121. Elsevier BV. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcae.2013.03.002
  • Lynn, S.G., Seethamraju, C., Seetharaman, A. (2008). Incremental Value Relevance of Unrecognized Deferred Taxes: Evidence from the United Kingdom. Journal of the American Taxation Association. 30 (2) 107-130. American Accounting Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.2308/jata.2008.30.2.107
  • Iyer, G.S., Schmidt, A., Seetharaman, A. (2008). The effects of standardized tax rates, average tax rates, and the distribution of income on tax progressivity. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy. 27 (1) 88-96. Elsevier BV. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2007.11.006
  • Seetharaman, A., Gul, F.A., Lynn, S.G. (2002). Litigation risk and audit fees: evidence from UK firms cross-listed on US markets. Journal of Accounting and Economics. 33 (1) 91-115. Elsevier BV. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0165-4101(01)00046-5
  • Seetharaman, A., Swanson, Z.L., Srinidhi, B. (2001). Analytical and Empirical Evidence of the Impact of Tax Rates on the Trade-off between Debt and Managerial Ownership. Other. 16 (3) 249-272. SAGE Publications. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0148558x0101600306
  • Iyer, G.S., Seetharaman, A. (2000). An Evaluation of Alternative Procedures for Measuring Horizontal Inequity. Other. 22 (1) 89-110. American Accounting Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.2308/jata.2000.22.1.89
  • Iyer, G.S., Seetharaman, A., Englebrecht, T.D. (1996). An analysis of the distributional effects of replacing the progressive income tax with a flat tax. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy. 15 (2) 83-110. Elsevier BV. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0278-4254(96)00013-0
,
Overall
Summative Rating		 Challenge and
Engagement Index		 Response Rate

out of 5
out of 7		 %
of
students responded
  • Overall Summative Rating (median):
    This rating represents the combined responses of students to the four global summative items and is presented to provide an overall index of the class’s quality. Overall summative statements include the following (response options include a Likert scale ranging from 5 = Excellent, 3 = Good, and 1= Very poor):
    • The course as a whole was
    • The course content was
    • The instructor’s contribution to the course was
    • The instructor’s effectiveness in teaching the subject matter was
  • Challenge and Engagement Index:
    This rating combines student responses to several SPOT items relating to how academically challenging students found the course to be and how engaged they were. Challenge and Engagement Index items include the following (response options include a Likert scale ranging from 7 = Much higher, 4 = Average, and 1 = Much lower):
    • Do you expect your grade in this course to be
    • The intellectual challenge presented was
    • The amount of effort you put into this course was
    • The amount of effort to succeed in this course was
    • Your involvement in course (doing assignments, attending classes, etc.) was
CLOSE