INCOME TAXES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2017
Income Tax Disclosure [Abstract]
INCOME TAXES	INCOME TAXES The effective income tax rate for the third quarter and first nine months of 2017 was expense of 17.3% and 13.9%, respectively, compared to expense of 8.8% and 9.6% for the third quarter and first nine months of 2016. The tax rate for the third quarter and first nine months of 2017 includes $234 of tax expense on the gain related to the Eaton Cummins joint venture transaction, which closed during the third quarter and is discussed in Note 2. Excluding the impact from the Eaton Cummins joint venture transaction, the effective income tax rate for the third quarter and first nine months of 2017 was expense of 9.5% and 8.8%, respectively. The increase in the effective tax rate in the third quarter of 2017 was due to greater levels of income in higher tax jurisdictions. The decrease in the effective tax rate in the first nine months of 2017 was due to the resolution of tax contingencies in lower tax jurisdictions and the excess tax benefits recognized for employee share-based payments pursuant to the adoption of ASU 2016-09 as discussed in Note 1. On July 26, 2017, the United States Tax Court issued a ruling in the previously-disclosed dispute between Eaton Corporation, a subsidiary of the Company (“Eaton Corp”) and the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”). As the Company has previously disclosed, the IRS issued a Notice in 2011 for Eaton Corp’s 2005 and 2006 tax years proposing assessments of $75 million in additional taxes plus $52 million in penalties related primarily to transfer pricing adjustments for products manufactured in Eaton facilities in Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic and sold to affiliated companies located in the U.S. As previously disclosed, the IRS also proposed adjustments related to the same transfer pricing issue in another Notice issued in 2014 for the 2007 through 2010 tax years. Eaton has set its transfer prices for products sold between these affiliates at the same prices that it sells such products to third parties, as required by two successive Advance Pricing Agreements (APAs) Eaton Corp entered into with the IRS. The IRS cancelled the APAs and made the proposed adjustments in the 2011 and 2014 Notices, which Eaton Corp disputed in the Tax Court. The Tax Court case involved both whether the APAs should be enforced and, if not, the appropriate transfer pricing methodology. The Tax Court held a trial for the 2005 and 2006 tax years, the outcome of which also applies to the transfer pricing matter in the 2007 through 2010 tax years. The Tax Court agreed with Eaton Corp that the IRS must abide by the terms of the APAs for the tax years 2005-2006, a finding that is also applicable to the 2007-2010 years. The Tax Court’s ruling on the APAs did not have a material impact on Eaton’s consolidated financial statements.

INCOME TAXES

The effective income tax rate for the third quarter and first nine months of 2017 was expense of 17.3% and 13.9%, respectively, compared to expense of 8.8% and 9.6% for the third quarter and first nine months of 2016. The tax rate for the third quarter and first nine months of 2017 includes $234 of tax expense on the gain related to the Eaton Cummins joint venture transaction, which closed during the third quarter and is discussed in Note 2. Excluding the impact from the Eaton Cummins joint venture transaction, the effective income tax rate for the third quarter and first nine months of 2017 was expense of 9.5% and 8.8%, respectively. The increase in the effective tax rate in the third quarter of 2017 was due to greater levels of income in higher tax jurisdictions. The decrease in the effective tax rate in the first nine months of 2017 was due to the resolution of tax contingencies in lower tax jurisdictions and the excess tax benefits recognized for employee share-based payments pursuant to the adoption of ASU 2016-09 as discussed in Note 1.

On July 26, 2017, the United States Tax Court issued a ruling in the previously-disclosed dispute between Eaton Corporation, a subsidiary of the Company (“Eaton Corp”) and the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”). As the Company has previously disclosed, the IRS issued a Notice in 2011 for Eaton Corp’s 2005 and 2006 tax years proposing assessments of $75 million in additional taxes plus $52 million in penalties related primarily to transfer pricing adjustments for products manufactured in Eaton facilities in Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic and sold to affiliated companies located in the U.S. As previously disclosed, the IRS also proposed adjustments related to the same transfer pricing issue in another Notice issued in 2014 for the 2007 through 2010 tax years. Eaton has set its transfer prices for products sold between these affiliates at the same prices that it sells such products to third parties, as required by two successive Advance Pricing Agreements (APAs) Eaton Corp entered into with the IRS. The IRS cancelled the APAs and made the proposed adjustments in the 2011 and 2014 Notices, which Eaton Corp disputed in the Tax Court. The Tax Court case involved both whether the APAs should be enforced and, if not, the appropriate transfer pricing methodology. The Tax Court held a trial for the 2005 and 2006 tax years, the outcome of which also applies to the transfer pricing matter in the 2007 through 2010 tax years.

The Tax Court agreed with Eaton Corp that the IRS must abide by the terms of the APAs for the tax years 2005-2006, a finding that is also applicable to the 2007-2010 years. The Tax Court’s ruling on the APAs did not have a material impact on Eaton’s consolidated financial statements.