Income Taxes	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2012
Income Tax Expense (Benefit) [Abstract]
INCOME TAXES	INCOME TAXES The effective income tax rate for the second quarter of 2012 was 8.7% compared to 14.7% for the second quarter of 2011 and 11.9% for the first six months of 2012 compared to 14.6% for the first six months of 2011. The lower effective tax rate in the second quarter of 2012 was primarily attributable to a reduction in deferred tax liabilities in a European jurisdiction due to realization of a lower effective tax rate, and higher foreign tax credits, partially offset by the expiration of the U.S. Research and Experimentation tax credit as of December 31, 2011. The lower effective tax rate in the first six months of 2012 was attributable to the items noted above and the favorable impact of enhanced investment incentives in Europe. At the end of the fourth quarter of 2011, the IRS issued a Notice for Eaton's 2005 and 2006 tax years. The Notice proposes assessments of $75 in additional taxes plus $52 in penalties related primarily to transfer pricing adjustments for products manufactured in the Company's facilities in Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic and sold to affiliated companies located in the U.S., net of agreed credits and deductions. The Company has set its transfer prices for products sold between these affiliates at the same prices that the Company sells such products to third parties. The Notice was issued despite the IRS having previously recognized the validity of the Company's transfer pricing methodology by entering into two successive binding Advance Pricing Agreements (APAs) that approved and, in fact, required the application of the Company's transfer pricing methodology for the ten year period of 2001 through 2010. For the years 2001 through 2004, the IRS had previously accepted the transfer pricing methodology related to these APAs after a comprehensive review conducted in two separate audit cycles. On December 16, 2011, immediately prior to the Notice being issued, the IRS sent a letter stating that it was canceling the APAs. The Company firmly believes that the proposed assessments are without merit. The Company also believes that it was in full compliance with the terms of the two APAs and that the IRS's unilateral attempt to retroactively cancel these two binding contracts is also without merit and represents a breach of the two contracts. On February 29, 2012, the Company filed a Petition with the U.S. Tax Court in which it asserted that the transfer pricing established in the two APA contracts meets the arms-length standard set by the U.S. income tax law, that the transfer pricing the Company has used is in full compliance with U.S. income tax laws, and accordingly, that the two APA contracts should be enforced in accordance with their terms. On June 11, 2012, the Company filed a motion for partial summary judgment with the U.S. Tax Court, asking the U.S. Tax Court to rule the APAs are “contracts” and that the IRS has the burden of proof to substantiate cancellation of the APAs. The Company believes that the ultimate resolution of this matter will not have a material impact on its consolidated financial statements.

Income Taxes

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2012

Income Tax Expense (Benefit) [Abstract]

The effective income tax rate for the second quarter of 2012 was 8.7% compared to 14.7% for the second quarter of 2011 and 11.9% for the first six months of 2012 compared to 14.6% for the first six months of 2011. The lower effective tax rate in the second quarter of 2012 was primarily attributable to a reduction in deferred tax liabilities in a European jurisdiction due to realization of a lower effective tax rate, and higher foreign tax credits, partially offset by the expiration of the U.S. Research and Experimentation tax credit as of December 31, 2011. The lower effective tax rate in the first six months of 2012 was attributable to the items noted above and the favorable impact of enhanced investment incentives in Europe.

At the end of the fourth quarter of 2011, the IRS issued a Notice for Eaton's 2005 and 2006 tax years. The Notice proposes assessments of $75 in additional taxes plus $52 in penalties related primarily to transfer pricing adjustments for products manufactured in the Company's facilities in Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic and sold to affiliated companies located in the U.S., net of agreed credits and deductions. The Company has set its transfer prices for products sold between these affiliates at the same prices that the Company sells such products to third parties. The Notice was issued despite the IRS having previously recognized the validity of the Company's transfer pricing methodology by entering into two successive binding Advance Pricing Agreements (APAs) that approved and, in fact, required the application of the Company's transfer pricing methodology for the ten year period of 2001 through 2010. For the years 2001 through 2004, the IRS had previously accepted the transfer pricing methodology related to these APAs after a comprehensive review conducted in two separate audit cycles. On December 16, 2011, immediately prior to the Notice being issued, the IRS sent a letter stating that it was canceling the APAs.

The Company firmly believes that the proposed assessments are without merit. The Company also believes that it was in full compliance with the terms of the two APAs and that the IRS's unilateral attempt to retroactively cancel these two binding contracts is also without merit and represents a breach of the two contracts. On February 29, 2012, the Company filed a Petition with the U.S. Tax Court in which it asserted that the transfer pricing established in the two APA contracts meets the arms-length standard set by the U.S. income tax law, that the transfer pricing the Company has used is in full compliance with U.S. income tax laws, and accordingly, that the two APA contracts should be enforced in accordance with their terms. On June 11, 2012, the Company filed a motion for partial summary judgment with the U.S. Tax Court, asking the U.S. Tax Court to rule the APAs are “contracts” and that the IRS has the burden of proof to substantiate cancellation of the APAs. The Company believes that the ultimate resolution of this matter will not have a material impact on its consolidated financial statements.