LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2013
Loss Contingency, Information about Litigation Matters [Abstract]
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND CONTINGENCIES	We are involved in a number of judicial proceedings and other matters arising from the conduct of our business activities. Although there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome, we have generally denied, or believe we have a meritorious defense and will deny, liability in all litigation pending against us, including (except as otherwise noted herein) the matters described below, and we intend to defend vigorously each case. We have accrued for legal claims when, and to the extent that, amounts associated with the claims become probable and can be reasonably estimated. The actual costs of resolving legal claims may be substantially higher or lower than the amounts accrued for those claims. For those matters as to which we are not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss, we are not able to determine whether the loss will have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations or liquidity. For matters in this category, we have indicated in the descriptions that follow the reasons that we are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss. Judicial Proceedings We are a defendant in a number of lawsuits filed in state and federal courts containing various class action allegations under state wage-and-hour laws. At this time, we do not believe that any loss associated with these matters would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. UPS and our subsidiary Mail Boxes Etc., Inc. are defendants in a lawsuit in California Superior Court about the rebranding of The UPS Store franchises. In the Morgate case, the plaintiffs are (1) 125 individual franchisees who did not rebrand to The UPS Store and (2) a certified class of all franchisees who did rebrand. With respect to the 125 individual franchisees described in (1) above, the trial court entered judgment against a bellwether individual plaintiff, which was affirmed in January 2012. In March 2013, we reached a settlement in principle with the remaining individual plaintiffs who did not rebrand. We believe this settlement will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. The trial court granted our motion for summary judgment against the certified class described in (2) above, which was reversed in January 2012. We have not reached a settlement with this class of franchisees, and the claims of the class remain pending. There are multiple factors that prevent us from being able to estimate the amount of loss, if any, that may result from the remaining aspects of this case, including: (1) we are vigorously defending ourselves and believe we have a number of meritorious legal defenses; and (2) it remains uncertain what evidence of damages, if any, plaintiffs will be able to present. Accordingly, at this time, we are not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss that may result from this matter or to determine whether such loss, if any, would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. In AFMS LLC v. UPS and FedEx Corporation, a lawsuit filed in federal court in the Central District of California in August 2010, the plaintiff asserts that UPS and FedEx violated U.S. antitrust law by conspiring to refuse to negotiate with third-party negotiators retained by shippers and by individually imposing policies that prevent shippers from using such negotiators. The case is scheduled to go to trial in February 2014. The Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has an ongoing civil investigation of our policies and practices for dealing with third-party negotiators. We are cooperating with this investigation. We deny any liability with respect to these matters and intend to vigorously defend ourselves. There are multiple factors that prevent us from being able to estimate the amount of loss, if any, that may result from these matters including: (1) we believe that we have a number of meritorious defenses; (2) the Court has not ruled on the pending dispositive motions; and (3) the DOJ investigation is pending. Accordingly, at this time, we are not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss that may result from these matters or to determine whether such loss, if any, would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. In Canada, four purported class-action cases were filed against us in British Columbia (2006); Ontario (2007) and Québec (2006 and 2013). The cases each allege inadequate disclosure concerning the existence and cost of brokerage services provided by us under applicable provincial consumer protection legislation and infringement of interest restriction provisions under the Criminal Code of Canada. The British Columbia class action was declared inappropriate for certification and dismissed by the trial judge. That decision was upheld by the British Columbia Court of Appeal in March 2010, which ended the case in our favor. The Ontario class action was certified in September 2011. Partial summary judgment was granted to us and the plaintiffs by the Ontario motions court. The complaint under the Criminal Code was dismissed. No appeal is being taken from that decision. The allegations of inadequate disclosure were granted and we are appealing that decision. The motion to authorize the 2006 Québec litigation as a class action was dismissed by the motions judge in October 2012; there was no appeal, which ended that case in our favor. The 2013 Québec litigation also has been dismissed. We deny all liability and are vigorously defending the one outstanding case in Ontario. There are multiple factors that prevent us from being able to estimate the amount of loss, if any, that may result from this matter, including: (1) we are vigorously defending ourselves and believe that we have a number of meritorious legal defenses; and (2) there are unresolved questions of law and fact that could be important to the ultimate resolution of this matter. Accordingly, at this time, we are not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss that may result from this matter or to determine whether such loss, if any, would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. Other Matters On March 29, 2013, we entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement (“NPA”) with the United States Attorney's Office in the Northern District of California in connection with an investigation by the Drug Enforcement Administration of shipments by illicit online pharmacies. Under the NPA, we forfeited $40 million to the government, admitted to a Statement of Facts describing the conduct leading to the agreement, and agreed to implement an online pharmacy compliance program. The term of the NPA is two years, although we can petition the government to shorten that term in its discretion to one year. The NPA did not have a material impact on our results of operations in 2013. In August 2010, competition authorities in Brazil opened an administrative proceeding to investigate alleged anticompetitive behavior in the freight forwarding industry. Approximately 45 freight forwarding companies and individuals are named in the proceeding, including UPS, UPS SCS Transportes (Brasil) S.A., and a former employee in Brazil. UPS will have an opportunity to respond to these allegations. In November 2012, the Commerce Commission of Singapore initiated an investigation with respect to similar matters. We are cooperating with each of these investigations, and intend to continue to vigorously defend ourselves. There are multiple factors that prevent us from being able to estimate the amount of loss, if any, that may result from these matters including: (1) we are vigorously defending each matter and believe that we have a number of meritorious legal defenses; (2) there are unresolved questions of law that could be of importance to the ultimate resolutions of these matters, including the calculation of any potential fine; and (3) there is uncertainty about the time period that is the subject of the investigations. Accordingly, at this time, we are not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss that may result from these matters or to determine whether such loss, if any, would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. In January 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York alleging price-fixing activities relating to the provision of freight forwarding services. UPS was not named in this case. In July 2009, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint naming numerous global freight forwarders as defendants. UPS and UPS Supply Chain Solutions are among the 60 defendants named in the amended complaint. The plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint in October 2010, which we moved to dismiss. In August 2012, the Court granted our motion to dismiss all claims relevant to UPS in the Second Amended Complaint, with leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint in November 2012. We filed another motion to dismiss. On September 20, 2013, the Magistrate Judge recommended to the Court that UPS be dismissed from one of the claims in the Third Amended Complaint, with prejudice, but recommended that UPS's motion to dismiss with respect to other claims in the Third Amended Complaint be denied. UPS and other defendants filed objections to the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge to the extent they recommended denial of UPS's motion to dismiss. Those objections are currently pending before the Court. There are multiple factors that prevent us from being able to estimate the amount of loss, if any, that may result from these matters including: (1) the Court's pending review of the adequacy of the Third Amended Complaint; (2) the scope and size of the proposed class is ill-defined; (3) there are significant legal questions about the adequacy and standing of the putative class representatives; and (4) we believe that we have a number of meritorious legal defenses. Accordingly, at this time, we are not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss that may result from these matters or to determine whether such loss, if any, would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. We are a defendant in various other lawsuits that arose in the normal course of business. We do not believe that the eventual resolution of these other lawsuits (either individually or in the aggregate), including any reasonably possible losses in excess of current accruals, will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. Tax Matters In June 2011, we received an IRS Revenue Agent Report ("RAR") covering excise taxes for tax years 2003 through 2007, in addition to the income tax matters described in note 14. The excise tax RAR proposed two alternate theories for asserting additional excise tax on transportation of property by air. We disagreed with these proposed excise tax theories and related adjustments. We filed protests and, in the third quarter of 2011, the IRS responded to our protests and forwarded the case to IRS Appeals. Beginning in the third quarter of 2012 and continuing through the first quarter of 2013, we had settlement discussions with the Appeals team. In the first quarter of 2013, we reached settlement terms for a complete resolution of all excise tax matters and correlative income tax refund claims for the 2003 through 2007 tax years. The final resolution of these matters did not materially impact our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.

We are involved in a number of judicial proceedings and other matters arising from the conduct of our business activities.

Although there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome, we have generally denied, or believe we have a meritorious defense and will deny, liability in all litigation pending against us, including (except as otherwise noted herein) the matters described below, and we intend to defend vigorously each case. We have accrued for legal claims when, and to the extent that, amounts associated with the claims become probable and can be reasonably estimated. The actual costs of resolving legal claims may be substantially higher or lower than the amounts accrued for those claims.

For those matters as to which we are not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss, we are not able to determine whether the loss will have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations or liquidity. For matters in this category, we have indicated in the descriptions that follow the reasons that we are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss.

Judicial Proceedings

We are a defendant in a number of lawsuits filed in state and federal courts containing various class action allegations under state wage-and-hour laws. At this time, we do not believe that any loss associated with these matters would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.

UPS and our subsidiary Mail Boxes Etc., Inc. are defendants in a lawsuit in California Superior Court about the rebranding of The UPS Store franchises. In the Morgate case, the plaintiffs are (1) 125 individual franchisees who did not rebrand to The UPS Store and (2) a certified class of all franchisees who did rebrand. With respect to the 125 individual franchisees described in (1) above, the trial court entered judgment against a bellwether individual plaintiff, which was affirmed in January 2012. In March 2013, we reached a settlement in principle with the remaining individual plaintiffs who did not rebrand. We believe this settlement will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. The trial court granted our motion for summary judgment against the certified class described in (2) above, which was reversed in January 2012. We have not reached a settlement with this class of franchisees, and the claims of the class remain pending.

There are multiple factors that prevent us from being able to estimate the amount of loss, if any, that may result from the remaining aspects of this case, including: (1) we are vigorously defending ourselves and believe we have a number of meritorious legal defenses; and (2) it remains uncertain what evidence of damages, if any, plaintiffs will be able to present. Accordingly, at this time, we are not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss that may result from this matter or to determine whether such loss, if any, would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.

In AFMS LLC v. UPS and FedEx Corporation, a lawsuit filed in federal court in the Central District of California in August 2010, the plaintiff asserts that UPS and FedEx violated U.S. antitrust law by conspiring to refuse to negotiate with third-party negotiators retained by shippers and by individually imposing policies that prevent shippers from using such negotiators. The case is scheduled to go to trial in February 2014. The Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has an ongoing civil investigation of our policies and practices for dealing with third-party negotiators. We are cooperating with this investigation. We deny any liability with respect to these matters and intend to vigorously defend ourselves. There are multiple factors that prevent us from being able to estimate the amount of loss, if any, that may result from these matters including: (1) we believe that we have a number of meritorious defenses; (2) the Court has not ruled on the pending dispositive motions; and (3) the DOJ investigation is pending. Accordingly, at this time, we are not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss that may result from these matters or to determine whether such loss, if any, would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.

In Canada, four purported class-action cases were filed against us in British Columbia (2006); Ontario (2007) and Québec (2006 and 2013). The cases each allege inadequate disclosure concerning the existence and cost of brokerage services provided by us under applicable provincial consumer protection legislation and infringement of interest restriction provisions under the Criminal Code of Canada. The British Columbia class action was declared inappropriate for certification and dismissed by the trial judge. That decision was upheld by the British Columbia Court of Appeal in March 2010, which ended the case in our favor. The Ontario class action was certified in September 2011. Partial summary judgment was granted to us and the plaintiffs by the Ontario motions court. The complaint under the Criminal Code was dismissed. No appeal is being taken from that decision. The allegations of inadequate disclosure were granted and we are appealing that decision. The motion to authorize the 2006 Québec litigation as a class action was dismissed by the motions judge in October 2012; there was no appeal, which ended that case in our favor. The 2013 Québec litigation also has been dismissed. We deny all liability and are vigorously defending the one outstanding case in Ontario. There are multiple factors that prevent us from being able to estimate the amount of loss, if any, that may result from this matter, including: (1) we are vigorously defending ourselves and believe that we have a number of meritorious legal defenses; and (2) there are unresolved questions of law and fact that could be important to the ultimate resolution of this matter. Accordingly, at this time, we are not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss that may result from this matter or to determine whether such loss, if any, would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.

Other Matters

On March 29, 2013, we entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement (“NPA”) with the United States Attorney's Office in the Northern District of California in connection with an investigation by the Drug Enforcement Administration of shipments by illicit online pharmacies. Under the NPA, we forfeited $40 million to the government, admitted to a Statement of Facts describing the conduct leading to the agreement, and agreed to implement an online pharmacy compliance program. The term of the NPA is two years, although we can petition the government to shorten that term in its discretion to one year. The NPA did not have a material impact on our results of operations in 2013.

In August 2010, competition authorities in Brazil opened an administrative proceeding to investigate alleged anticompetitive behavior in the freight forwarding industry. Approximately 45 freight forwarding companies and individuals are named in the proceeding, including UPS, UPS SCS Transportes (Brasil) S.A., and a former employee in Brazil. UPS will have an opportunity to respond to these allegations. In November 2012, the Commerce Commission of Singapore initiated an investigation with respect to similar matters.

We are cooperating with each of these investigations, and intend to continue to vigorously defend ourselves. There are multiple factors that prevent us from being able to estimate the amount of loss, if any, that may result from these matters including: (1) we are vigorously defending each matter and believe that we have a number of meritorious legal defenses; (2) there are unresolved questions of law that could be of importance to the ultimate resolutions of these matters, including the calculation of any potential fine; and (3) there is uncertainty about the time period that is the subject of the investigations. Accordingly, at this time, we are not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss that may result from these matters or to determine whether such loss, if any, would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.

In January 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York alleging price-fixing activities relating to the provision of freight forwarding services. UPS was not named in this case. In July 2009, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint naming numerous global freight forwarders as defendants. UPS and UPS Supply Chain Solutions are among the 60 defendants named in the amended complaint. The plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint in October 2010, which we moved to dismiss. In August 2012, the Court granted our motion to dismiss all claims relevant to UPS in the Second Amended Complaint, with leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint in November 2012. We filed another motion to dismiss. On September 20, 2013, the Magistrate Judge recommended to the Court that UPS be dismissed from one of the claims in the Third Amended Complaint, with prejudice, but recommended that UPS's motion to dismiss with respect to other claims in the Third Amended Complaint be denied. UPS and other defendants filed objections to the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge to the extent they recommended denial of UPS's motion to dismiss. Those objections are currently pending before the Court. There are multiple factors that prevent us from being able to estimate the amount of loss, if any, that may result from these matters including: (1) the Court's pending review of the adequacy of the Third Amended Complaint; (2) the scope and size of the proposed class is ill-defined; (3) there are significant legal questions about the adequacy and standing of the putative class representatives; and (4) we believe that we have a number of meritorious legal defenses. Accordingly, at this time, we are not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss that may result from these matters or to determine whether such loss, if any, would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.

We are a defendant in various other lawsuits that arose in the normal course of business. We do not believe that the eventual resolution of these other lawsuits (either individually or in the aggregate), including any reasonably possible losses in excess of current accruals, will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.

Tax Matters

In June 2011, we received an IRS Revenue Agent Report ("RAR") covering excise taxes for tax years 2003 through 2007, in addition to the income tax matters described in note 14. The excise tax RAR proposed two alternate theories for asserting additional excise tax on transportation of property by air. We disagreed with these proposed excise tax theories and related adjustments. We filed protests and, in the third quarter of 2011, the IRS responded to our protests and forwarded the case to IRS Appeals.

Beginning in the third quarter of 2012 and continuing through the first quarter of 2013, we had settlement discussions with the Appeals team. In the first quarter of 2013, we reached settlement terms for a complete resolution of all excise tax matters and correlative income tax refund claims for the 2003 through 2007 tax years. The final resolution of these matters did not materially impact our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.