Commitments And Contingent Liabilities (Note)	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments And Contingent Liabilities	NOTE 14 COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES GUARANTEES In connection with sales of businesses, property, equipment, forestlands and other assets, International Paper commonly makes representations and warranties relating to such businesses or assets, and may agree to indemnify buyers with respect to tax and environmental liabilities, breaches of representations and warranties, and other matters. Where liabilities for such matters are determined to be probable and reasonably estimable, accrued liabilities are recorded at the time of sale as a cost of the transaction. Brazil Goodwill Tax Matter: The Brazilian Federal Revenue Service has challenged the deductibility of goodwill amortization generated in a 2007 acquisition by Sylvamo do Brasil Ltda., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company ("Sylvamo Brazil") until the October 1, 2021 spin-off of the Printing Papers business after which is became a subsidiary of Sylvamo Corporation. Sylvamo Brazil received assessments for the tax years 2007-2015 totaling approximately $106 million in tax, and $351 million in interest, penalties, and fees as of December 31, 2021 (adjusted for variation in currency exchange rates). After a previous favorable ruling challenging the basis for these assessments, Sylvamo Brazil received subsequent unfavorable decisions from the Brazilian Administrative Council of Tax Appeals. Sylvamo Brazil has appealed these and any future unfavorable administrative judgments to the Brazilian federal courts; however, this tax litigation matter may take many years to resolve. Sylvamo Brazil and International Paper believe the transaction underlying these assessments was appropriately evaluated, and that Sylvamo Brazil's tax position would be sustained, based on Brazilian tax law. This matter pertains to a business that was conveyed to Sylvamo Corporation as of October 1, 2021, as part of our spin-off transaction. Pursuant to the terms of the tax matters agreement entered into between the Company and Sylvamo Corporation, the Company will pay 60% and Sylvamo will pay 40%, of up to $300 million of any tax assessment related to the matter, and the Company will pay all tax assessment amounts over $300 million. All decisions concerning the conduct of the litigation related to this matter, including strategy, settlement, pursuit and abandonment, will be made by the Company. Sylvamo Corporation thus has no control over any decision related to this ongoing litigation. The Company intends to vigorously defend this historic tax position against the current assessments and any similar assessments that may be issued for tax years subsequent to 2015. The Brazilian government may enact a tax amnesty program that would allow Sylvamo do Brasil Ltda. to resolve this dispute for less than the assessed amount. As of October 1, 2021, in connection with the recording of the distribution of assets and liabilities resulting from the spin-off transaction, the Company has established a liability representing the initial fair value of the contingent liability under the tax matters agreement. The contingent liability was determined in accordance with ASC 460 "Guarantees" based on the probability weighting of various possible outcomes. The initial fair value estimate and recorded liability as of December 31, 2021 is $48 million. This liability will not be adjusted in subsequent periods unless facts and circumstances change such that an amount greater than the initial recognized liability becomes probable and estimable. ENVIRONMENTAL AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS Environmental The Company has been named as a potentially responsible party (PRP) in environmental remediation actions under various federal and state laws, including the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). Many of these proceedings involve the cleanup of hazardous substances at large commercial landfills that received waste from many different sources. While joint and several liability is authorized under CERCLA and equivalent state laws, as a practical matter, liability for CERCLA cleanups is typically allocated among the many PRPs. There are other remediation costs typically associated with the cleanup of hazardous substances at the Company’s current, closed or formerly-owned facilities, and recorded as liabilities in the balance sheet. Remediation costs are recorded in the consolidated financial statements when they become probable and reasonably estimable. International Paper has estimated the probable liability associated with these environmental remediation matters, including those described herein, to be approximately $182 million ($191 million undiscounted) in the aggregate as of December 31, 2021. Other than as described below, completion of required environmental remedial actions is not expected to have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements. Cass Lake: One of the matters included above arises out of a closed wood-treatment facility located in Cass Lake, Minnesota. In June 2011, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) selected and published a proposed soil remedy at the site with an estimated cost of $46 million. In April 2020, the EPA issued a final plan concerning clean-up standards at a portion of the site, the estimated cost of which is included within the soil remedy cost referenced above. Kalamazoo River: The Company is a PRP with respect to the Allied Paper, Inc./Portage Creek/Kalamazoo River Superfund Site in Michigan. The EPA asserts that the site is contaminated by polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) primarily as a result of discharges from various paper mills located along the Kalamazoo River, including a paper mill formerly owned by St. Regis Paper Company (St. Regis). The Company is a successor in interest to St. Regis. •Operable Unit 5, Area 1: In March 2016, the Company and other PRPs received a special notice letter from the EPA (i) inviting participation in implementing a remedy for a portion of the site known as Operable Unit 5, Area 1, and (ii) demanding reimbursement of EPA past costs totaling $37 million, including $19 million in past costs previously demanded by the EPA. The Company responded to the special notice letter. In December 2016, the EPA issued a unilateral administrative order to the Company and other PRPs to perform the remedy. The Company responded to the unilateral administrative order, agreeing to comply with the order subject to its sufficient cause defenses. •Operable Unit 1: In October 2016, the Company and another PRP received a special notice letter from the EPA inviting participation in the remedial design component of the landfill remedy for the Allied Paper Mill, which is also known as Operable Unit 1. The Record of Decision establishing the final landfill remedy for the Allied Paper Mill was issued by the EPA in September 2016. The Company responded to the Allied Paper Mill special notice letter in December 2016. In February 2017, the EPA informed the Company that it would make other arrangements for the performance of the remedial design. In addition, in December 2019, the United States published notice in the Federal Register of a proposed consent decree with NCR Corporation (one of the parties to the allocation/apportionment litigation described below), the State of Michigan and natural resource trustees under which NCR would make payments of more than $100 million and perform work in Operable Unit 5, Areas 2, 3, and 4 at an estimated cost of $136 million. In December 2020, the Federal District Court approved the proposed consent decree. The Company’s CERCLA liability has not been finally determined with respect to these or any other portions of the site, and except as noted above, the Company has declined to perform any work or reimburse the EPA at this time. As noted below, the Company is involved in allocation/apportionment litigation with regard to the site. Accordingly, it is premature to predict the outcome or estimate our maximum reasonably possible loss or range of loss with respect to this site. We have recorded a liability for future remediation costs at the site that are probable and reasonably estimable, and it remains reasonably possible that additional losses in excess of this recorded liability could be material. The Company was named as a defendant by Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP, Fort James Corporation and Georgia Pacific LLC in a contribution and cost recovery action for alleged pollution at the site. NCR Corporation and Weyerhaeuser Company are also named as defendants in the suit. The suit seeks contribution under CERCLA for costs purportedly expended by plaintiffs ($79 million as of the filing of the complaint) and for future remediation costs. In June 2018, the Court issued its Final Judgment and Order, which fixed the past cost amount at approximately $50 million (plus interest to be determined) and allocated to the Company a 15% share of responsibility for those past costs. The Court did not address responsibility for future costs in its decision. In July 2018, the Company and each of the other parties filed notices appealing the Final Judgment and prior orders incorporated into that Judgment. The Company appeal is pending. Harris County: International Paper and McGinnis Industrial Maintenance Corporation (MIMC), a subsidiary of Waste Management, Inc. (WMI), are PRPs at the San Jacinto River Waste Pits Superfund Site in Harris County, Texas. The PRPs have been actively participating in the activities at the site and share the costs of these activities. In October 2017, the EPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) selecting the final remedy for the site: removal and relocation of the waste material from both the northern and southern impoundments. The EPA did not specify the methods or practices needed to perform this work. The EPA’s selected remedy was accompanied by a cost estimate of approximately $115 million ($105 million for the northern impoundment, and $10 million for the southern impoundment). Subsequent to the issuance of the ROD, there have been numerous meetings between the EPA and the PRPs, and the Company continues to work with the EPA and MIMC/WMI to develop the remedial design. To this end, in April 2018, the PRPs entered into an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) with the EPA, agreeing to work together to develop the remedial design for the northern impoundment. That remedial design work is ongoing. The AOC does not include any agreement to perform waste removal or other construction activity at the site. Rather, it involves adaptive management techniques and a pre-design investigation, the objectives of which include filling data gaps (including but not limited to post-Hurricane Harvey technical data generated prior to the ROD and not incorporated into the selected remedy), refining areas and volumes of materials to be addressed, determining if an excavation remedy is able to be implemented in a manner protective of human health and the environment, and investigating potential impacts of remediation activities to infrastructure in the vicinity. During the first quarter of 2020, through a series of meetings among the Company, MIMC/WMI, our consultants, the EPA and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), progress was made to resolve key technical issues previously preventing the Company from determining the manner in which the selected remedy for the northern impoundment would be feasibly implemented. As a result of these developments the Company reserved the following amounts in relation to remediation at this site: (a) $10 million for the southern impoundment; and (b) $55 million for the northern impoundment, which represents the Company's 50% share of our estimate of the low end of the range of probable remediation costs. We have submitted the Final Design Package for the southern impoundment to the EPA, and the EPA approved this plan May 7, 2021. The EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order for Remedial Action of the southern impoundment on August 5, 2021. With respect to the northern impoundment, although several key technical issues have been resolved, we still face significant challenges remediating this area in a cost-efficient manner and without a release to the environment and therefore our discussions with the EPA on the best approach to remediation will continue. Because of ongoing questions regarding cost effectiveness, timing and gathering other technical data, additional losses in excess of our recorded liability are possible. We are currently unable to reasonably estimate any further adjustment to our recorded liability or any loss or range of loss in excess of such liability; however, we believe it is unlikely any adjustment would be material. Asbestos-Related Matters We have been named as a defendant in various asbestos-related personal injury litigation, in both state and federal court, primarily in relation to the prior operations of certain companies previously acquired by the Company. As of December 31, 2021, the Company's total recorded liability with respect to pending and future asbestos-related claims was $103 million, net of estimated insurance recoveries. While it is reasonably possible that the Company may incur losses in excess of its recorded liability with respect to asbestos-related matters, we are unable to estimate any loss or range in excess of such liability, and do not believe additional material losses are probable. Antitrust In March 2017, the Italian Competition Authority (ICA) commenced an investigation into the Italian packaging industry to determine whether producers of corrugated sheets and boxes violated the applicable European competition law. In April 2019, the ICA concluded its investigation and issued initial findings alleging that over 30 producers, including our Italian packaging subsidiary (IP Italy), improperly coordinated the production and sale of corrugated sheets and boxes. On August 6, 2019, the ICA issued its decision and assessed IP Italy a fine of €29 million (approximately $32 million at current exchange rates) which was recorded in the third quarter of 2019. We appealed the ICA decision and our appeal was denied on May 25, 2021. However, we continue to believe we have numerous and strong bases to challenge the ICA decision, and we have further appealed the decision to the Italian Council of State. Taxes Other Than Payroll and Income Taxes In 2017, the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court decided that the state value-added tax (VAT) should not be included in the basis of federal VAT calculations. In 2018 and 2019, the Brazilian tax authorities published both an internal consultation and a normative ruling with a narrow interpretation of the effects of the case. Based upon the best information available to us at that time, we determined an estimated refund was probable of being realized. As of March 31, 2021, we had recognized a receivable of $11 million based upon the authority's narrow interpretation. On May 13, 2021, the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court ruled again on the case. This ruling provides a much broader definition of the state VAT, which increased the exclusion amount from the Federal VAT calculations. Therefore, we recognized an additional receivable of $70 million during the three months ended June 30, 2021, which brought the total receivable to $81 million as of June 30, 2021. The $70 million of income recognized during the second quarter of 2021 included income of $42 million in Cost of Products sold and income of $28 million in Interest expense, net in the accompanying condensed consolidated statement of operations. A portion of this receivable has been consumed by offsetting various taxes payable leaving a remaining receivable of $48 million. This remaining receivable was conveyed to Sylvamo Corporation on of October 1, 2021, as part of our spin-off transaction. General The Company is involved in various other inquiries, administrative proceedings and litigation relating to environmental and safety matters, personal injury, product liability, labor and employment, contracts, sales of property, intellectual property, tax, and other matters, some of which allege substantial monetary damages. See Note 13 for details regarding a tax matter. Assessments of lawsuits and claims can involve a series of complex judgments about future events, can rely heavily on estimates and assumptions, and are otherwise subject to significant uncertainties. As a result, there can be no certainty that the Company will not ultimately incur charges in excess of presently recorded liabilities. The Company believes that loss contingencies arising from pending matters including the matters described herein, will not have a material effect on the consolidated financial position or liquidity of the Company. However, in light of the inherent uncertainties involved in pending or threatened legal matters, some of which are beyond the Company's control, and the large or indeterminate damages sought in some of these matters, a future adverse ruling, settlement, unfavorable development, or increase in accruals with respect to these matters could result in future charges that could be material to the Company's results of operations or cash flows in any particular reporting period.

cleanup of hazardous substances at large commercial landfills that received waste from many different sources. While joint and several liability is authorized under CERCLA and equivalent state laws, as a practical matter, liability for CERCLA cleanups is typically allocated among the many PRPs. There are other remediation costs typically associated with the cleanup of hazardous substances at the Company’s current, closed or formerly-owned facilities, and recorded as liabilities in the balance sheet.

Remediation costs are recorded in the consolidated financial statements when they become probable and reasonably estimable. International Paper has estimated the probable liability associated with these environmental remediation matters, including those described herein, to be approximately $182 million ($191 million undiscounted) in the aggregate as of December 31, 2021. Other than as described below, completion of required environmental remedial actions is not expected to have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements.

Cass Lake: One of the matters included above arises out of a closed wood-treatment facility located in Cass Lake, Minnesota. In June 2011, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) selected and published a proposed soil remedy at the site with an estimated cost of $46 million. In April 2020, the EPA issued a final plan concerning clean-up standards at a portion of the site, the estimated cost of which is included within the soil remedy cost referenced above.

Kalamazoo River: The Company is a PRP with respect to the Allied Paper, Inc./Portage Creek/Kalamazoo River Superfund Site in Michigan. The EPA asserts that the site is contaminated by polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) primarily as a result of discharges from various paper mills located along the Kalamazoo River, including a paper mill formerly owned by St. Regis Paper Company (St. Regis). The Company is a successor in interest to St. Regis.

•Operable Unit 5, Area 1: In March 2016, the Company and other PRPs received a special notice letter from the EPA (i) inviting participation in implementing a remedy for a portion of the site known as Operable Unit 5, Area 1, and (ii) demanding reimbursement of EPA past costs totaling $37 million, including $19 million in past costs previously demanded by the EPA. The Company responded to the special notice letter. In December 2016, the EPA issued a unilateral administrative order to the Company and other PRPs to perform the remedy. The Company responded to the unilateral administrative order,

agreeing to comply with the order subject to its sufficient cause defenses.

•Operable Unit 1: In October 2016, the Company and another PRP received a special notice letter from the EPA inviting participation in the remedial design component of the landfill remedy for the Allied Paper Mill, which is also known as Operable Unit 1. The Record of Decision establishing the final landfill remedy for the Allied Paper Mill was issued by the EPA in September 2016. The Company responded to the Allied Paper Mill special notice letter in December 2016. In February 2017, the EPA informed the Company that it would make other arrangements for the performance of the remedial design.

In addition, in December 2019, the United States published notice in the Federal Register of a proposed consent decree with NCR Corporation (one of the parties to the allocation/apportionment litigation described below), the State of Michigan and natural resource trustees under which NCR would make payments of more than $100 million and perform work in Operable Unit 5, Areas 2, 3, and 4 at an estimated cost of $136 million. In December 2020, the Federal District Court approved the proposed consent decree.

The Company’s CERCLA liability has not been finally determined with respect to these or any other portions of the site, and except as noted above, the Company has declined to perform any work or reimburse the EPA at this time. As noted below, the Company is involved in allocation/apportionment litigation with regard to the site. Accordingly, it is premature to predict the outcome or estimate our maximum reasonably possible loss or range of loss with respect to this site. We have recorded a liability for future remediation costs at the site that are probable and reasonably estimable, and it remains reasonably possible that additional losses in excess of this recorded liability could be material.

The Company was named as a defendant by Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP, Fort James Corporation and Georgia Pacific LLC in a contribution and cost recovery action for alleged pollution at the site. NCR Corporation and Weyerhaeuser Company are also named as defendants in the suit. The suit seeks contribution under CERCLA for costs purportedly expended by plaintiffs ($79 million as of the filing of the complaint) and for future remediation costs. In June 2018, the Court issued its Final Judgment and Order, which fixed the past cost amount at approximately $50 million (plus interest to be determined) and allocated to the Company a 15% share of responsibility for those past costs. The Court did not address responsibility for future costs in its

decision. In July 2018, the Company and each of the other parties filed notices appealing the Final Judgment and prior orders incorporated into that Judgment. The Company appeal is pending.

Harris County: International Paper and McGinnis Industrial Maintenance Corporation (MIMC), a subsidiary of Waste Management, Inc. (WMI), are PRPs at the San Jacinto River Waste Pits Superfund Site in Harris County, Texas. The PRPs have been actively participating in the activities at the site and share the costs of these activities.

In October 2017, the EPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) selecting the final remedy for the site: removal and relocation of the waste material from both the northern and southern impoundments. The EPA did not specify the methods or practices needed to perform this work. The EPA’s selected remedy was accompanied by a cost estimate of approximately $115 million ($105 million for the northern impoundment, and $10 million for the southern impoundment). Subsequent to the issuance of the ROD, there have been numerous meetings between the EPA and the PRPs, and the Company continues to work with the EPA and MIMC/WMI to develop the remedial design.

To this end, in April 2018, the PRPs entered into an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) with the EPA, agreeing to work together to develop the remedial design for the northern impoundment. That remedial design work is ongoing. The AOC does not include any agreement to perform waste removal or other construction activity at the site. Rather, it involves adaptive management techniques and a pre-design investigation, the objectives of which include filling data gaps (including but not limited to post-Hurricane Harvey technical data generated prior to the ROD and not incorporated into the selected remedy), refining areas and volumes of materials to be addressed, determining if an excavation remedy is able to be implemented in a manner protective of human health and the environment, and investigating potential impacts of remediation activities to infrastructure in the vicinity.

During the first quarter of 2020, through a series of meetings among the Company, MIMC/WMI, our consultants, the EPA and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), progress was made to resolve key technical issues previously preventing the Company from determining the manner in which the selected remedy for the northern impoundment would be feasibly implemented. As a result of these developments the Company reserved the following amounts in relation to remediation at this site: (a) $10 million for the southern impoundment; and (b)

$55 million for the northern impoundment, which represents the Company's 50% share of our estimate of the low end of the range of probable remediation costs.

We have submitted the Final Design Package for the southern impoundment to the EPA, and the EPA approved this plan May 7, 2021. The EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order for Remedial Action of the southern impoundment on August 5, 2021.

With respect to the northern impoundment, although several key technical issues have been resolved, we still face significant challenges remediating this area in a cost-efficient manner and without a release to the environment and therefore our discussions with the EPA on the best approach to remediation will continue. Because of ongoing questions regarding cost effectiveness, timing and gathering other technical data, additional losses in excess of our recorded liability are possible. We are currently unable to reasonably estimate any further adjustment to our recorded liability or any loss or range of loss in excess of such liability; however, we believe it is unlikely any adjustment would be material.

Asbestos-Related Matters

We have been named as a defendant in various asbestos-related personal injury litigation, in both state and federal court, primarily in relation to the prior operations of certain companies previously acquired by the Company. As of December 31, 2021, the Company's total recorded liability with respect to pending and future asbestos-related claims was $103 million, net of estimated insurance recoveries. While it is reasonably possible that the Company may incur losses in excess of its recorded liability with respect to asbestos-related matters, we are unable to estimate any loss or range in excess of such liability, and do not believe additional material losses are probable.

Antitrust

In March 2017, the Italian Competition Authority (ICA) commenced an investigation into the Italian packaging industry to determine whether producers of corrugated sheets and boxes violated the applicable European competition law. In April 2019, the ICA concluded its investigation and issued initial findings alleging that over 30 producers, including our Italian packaging subsidiary (IP Italy), improperly coordinated the production and sale of corrugated sheets and boxes. On August 6, 2019, the ICA issued its decision and assessed IP Italy a fine of €29 million (approximately $32 million at current exchange rates) which was recorded in the third quarter of 2019. We appealed the ICA decision and our appeal was denied on May 25, 2021. However, we continue to

believe we have numerous and strong bases to challenge the ICA decision, and we have further appealed the decision to the Italian Council of State.

Taxes Other Than Payroll and Income Taxes

In 2017, the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court decided that the state value-added tax (VAT) should not be included in the basis of federal VAT calculations. In 2018 and 2019, the Brazilian tax authorities published both an internal consultation and a normative ruling with a narrow interpretation of the effects of the case. Based upon the best information available to us at that time, we determined an estimated refund was probable of being realized. As of March 31, 2021, we had recognized a receivable of $11 million based upon the authority's narrow interpretation. On May 13, 2021, the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court ruled again on the case. This ruling provides a much broader definition of the state VAT, which increased the exclusion amount from the Federal VAT calculations. Therefore, we recognized an additional receivable of $70 million during the three months ended June 30, 2021, which brought the total receivable to $81 million as of June 30, 2021. The $70 million of income recognized during the second quarter of 2021 included income of $42 million in Cost of Products sold and income of $28 million in Interest expense, net in the accompanying condensed consolidated statement of operations. A portion of this receivable has been consumed by offsetting various taxes payable leaving a remaining receivable of $48 million. This remaining receivable was conveyed to Sylvamo Corporation on of October 1, 2021, as part of our spin-off transaction.

General

The Company is involved in various other inquiries, administrative proceedings and litigation relating to environmental and safety matters, personal injury, product liability, labor and employment, contracts, sales of property, intellectual property, tax, and other matters, some of which allege substantial monetary damages. See Note 13 for details regarding a tax matter. Assessments of lawsuits and claims can involve a series of complex judgments about future events, can rely heavily on estimates and assumptions, and are otherwise subject to significant uncertainties. As a result, there can be no certainty that the Company will not ultimately incur charges in excess of presently recorded liabilities. The Company believes that loss contingencies arising from pending matters including the matters described herein, will not have a material effect on the consolidated financial position or liquidity of the Company. However, in light of the inherent uncertainties involved in pending or threatened legal matters, some

of which are beyond the Company's control, and the large or indeterminate damages sought in some of these matters, a future adverse ruling, settlement, unfavorable development, or increase in accruals with respect to these matters could result in future charges that could be material to the Company's results of operations or cash flows in any particular reporting period.