Commitments and Contingencies (Notes)	6 Months Ended
Jul. 31, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	NOTE 7 — COMMITMENTS & CONTINGENCIES Synthetic Lease Facility The Company has a synthetic lease facility with a group of financial institutions (the “Synthetic Lease”) under which the Company leases certain logistics centers and office facilities from a third-party lessor, that expires in June 2018. Properties leased under the Synthetic Lease are located in Clearwater and Miami, Florida; Fort Worth, Texas; Fontana, California; Suwanee, Georgia; Swedesboro, New Jersey; and South Bend, Indiana. The Synthetic Lease is accounted for as an operating lease and rental payments are calculated at the applicable LIBOR rate plus a margin based on the Company's credit ratings. Upon not less than 30 days notice, the Company, at its option, may purchase one or any combination of the properties, at an amount equal to each of the property's cost, as long as the lease balance does not decrease below a defined amount. Upon not less than 270 days, nor more than 360 days, prior to the lease expiration, the Company may, at its option, (i) purchase a minimum of two of the properties, at an amount equal to each of the property's cost, (ii) exercise the option to renew the lease for a minimum of two of the properties or (iii) exercise the option to remarket a minimum of two of the properties and cause a sale of the properties. If the Company elects to remarket the properties, the Company has guaranteed the lessor a percentage of the cost of each property, in the aggregate amount of approximately $133.8 million. Future annual lease payments under the Synthetic Lease are approximately $2.9 million per year. Guarantees The Company has arrangements with certain finance companies that provide inventory financing facilities to the Company’s customers. In conjunction with certain of these arrangements, the Company would be required to purchase certain inventory in the event the inventory is repossessed from the customers by the finance companies. As the Company does not have access to information regarding the amount of inventory purchased from the Company still on hand with the customer at any point in time, the Company’s repurchase obligations relating to inventory cannot be reasonably estimated. Repurchases of inventory by the Company under these arrangements have been insignificant to date. The Company believes that, based on historical experience, the likelihood of a material loss pursuant to these inventory repurchase obligations is remote. The Company provides additional financial guarantees to finance companies on behalf of certain customers. The majority of these guarantees are for an indefinite period of time, where the Company would be required to perform if the customer is in default with the finance company related to purchases made from the Company. The Company reviews the underlying credit for these guarantees on at least an annual basis. As of July 31, 2016 and January 31, 2016, the outstanding amount of guarantees under these arrangements totaled $5.0 million and $4.6 million, respectively. The Company believes that, based on historical experience, the likelihood of a material loss pursuant to the above guarantees is remote. Contingencies Prior to fiscal 2004, one of the Company’s subsidiaries, located in Spain, was audited in relation to various value added tax (“VAT”) matters. As a result of those audits, the Spanish subsidiary received notices of assessment related to fiscal years 1994 through 2001 from the Regional Inspection Unit of Spain’s taxing authority that allege the subsidiary did not properly collect and remit VAT. The Spanish subsidiary appealed these assessments to the Madrid Central Economic Administrative Courts beginning in March 2010. Following the administrative court proceedings the matter was appealed to the Spanish National Appellate Court. During 2013, the Spanish National Appellate Court issued an opinion upholding the assessments for several of the assessed years. During fiscal 2015, the Madrid Central Economic Administrative Court issued a decision revoking the penalties for certain of the assessed years. During fiscal 2016, the Spanish Supreme Court issued final decisions for the assessments related to fiscal years 1996 through 2001 which barred certain of the assessed amounts. As a result of these decisions, during the three months ended July 31, 2015, the Company decreased its accrual for costs associated with this matter by $25.4 million, including $16.4 million related to an accrual for assessments and penalties recorded in “value added tax assessments” and $9.0 million related to accrued interest recorded in “interest expense” in the Consolidated Statement of Income. The Company paid the remaining assessed amounts for fiscal years 1996 through 2001 of $12.3 million during the third quarter of fiscal 2016. During the second quarter of fiscal 2017, the Spanish National Appellate Court issued an opinion upholding the assessments for fiscal years 1994 and 1995. Although the Company believes that the Spanish subsidiary's defense to the assessments has solid legal grounds and is continuing to vigorously defend its position by appealing to the Spanish Supreme Court, certain of the amounts assessed for fiscal years 1994 and 1995 are not eligible to be appealed to the Spanish Supreme Court. As a result, the Company increased its accrual for costs associated with this matter by $2.6 million in the second quarter of fiscal 2017, including $1.5 million recorded in "value added tax assessments" and $1.1 million recorded in "interest expense" in the Consolidated Statement of Income. The Company estimates the probable liability for these remaining assessments, including various penalties and interest, was approximately $7.4 million at July 31, 2016 which is included in "accrued expenses and other liabilities" in the Consolidated Balance Sheet. In December 2010, in a non-unanimous decision, a Brazilian appellate court overturned a 2003 trial court which had previously ruled in favor of the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary related to the imposition of certain taxes on payments abroad related to the licensing of commercial software products, commonly referred to as “CIDE tax.” The Company estimates the total exposure related to the CIDE tax, including interest, was approximately $21.9 million at July 31, 2016. The Brazilian subsidiary has appealed the unfavorable ruling to the Supreme Court and Superior Court, Brazil's two highest appellate courts. Based on the legal opinion of outside counsel, the Company believes that the chances of success on appeal of this matter are favorable and the Brazilian subsidiary intends to vigorously defend its position that the CIDE tax is not due. However, due to the lack of predictability of the Brazilian court system, the Company has concluded that it is reasonably possible that the Brazilian subsidiary may incur a loss up to the total exposure described above. The Company believes the resolution of this litigation will not be material to the Company’s consolidated net assets or liquidity. In addition to the CIDE tax matter discussed above, the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary has been undergoing several examinations of non-income related taxes. Given the lack of predictability of the Brazilian tax system, the Company believes that it is reasonably possible that a loss may have been incurred. However, due to the complex nature of the Brazilian tax system and the absence of communication from the local tax authorities regarding these examinations, the Company is currently unable to determine the likelihood of these examinations resulting in assessments or to estimate the amount of loss, if any, that may be reasonably possible if such assessment were to be made. In the second quarter of fiscal 2016, the Company determined that it had additional VAT liabilities due in one of its European subsidiaries. As a result, the Company recorded a charge of $6.8 million in “value added tax assessments” in the Consolidated Statement of Income during the second quarter of fiscal 2016 representing the probable liability for VAT and associated penalties. The Company has subsequently paid all VAT associated with this matter and filed amended tax returns with the tax authorities. The Company is subject to various other legal proceedings and claims arising in the ordinary course of business. The Company’s management does not expect that the outcome in any of these other legal proceedings, individually or collectively, will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

NOTE 7 — COMMITMENTS & CONTINGENCIES

Synthetic Lease Facility

The Company has a synthetic lease facility with a group of financial institutions (the “Synthetic Lease”) under which the Company leases certain logistics centers and office facilities from a third-party lessor, that expires in June 2018. Properties leased under the Synthetic Lease are located in Clearwater and Miami, Florida; Fort Worth, Texas; Fontana, California; Suwanee, Georgia; Swedesboro, New Jersey; and South Bend, Indiana. The Synthetic Lease is accounted for as an operating lease and rental payments are calculated at the applicable LIBOR rate plus a margin based on the Company's credit ratings.

Upon not less than 30 days notice, the Company, at its option, may purchase one or any combination of the properties, at an amount equal to each of the property's cost, as long as the lease balance does not decrease below a defined amount. Upon not less than 270 days, nor more than 360 days, prior to the lease expiration, the Company may, at its option, (i) purchase a minimum of two of the properties, at an amount equal to each of the property's cost, (ii) exercise the option to renew the lease for a minimum of two of the properties or (iii) exercise the option to remarket a minimum of two of the properties and cause a sale of the properties. If the Company elects to remarket the properties, the Company has guaranteed the lessor a percentage of the cost of each property, in the aggregate amount of approximately $133.8 million. Future annual lease payments under the Synthetic Lease are approximately $2.9 million per year.

Guarantees

The Company has arrangements with certain finance companies that provide inventory financing facilities to the Company’s customers. In conjunction with certain of these arrangements, the Company would be required to purchase certain inventory in the event the inventory is repossessed from the customers by the finance companies. As the Company does not have access to information regarding the amount of inventory purchased from the Company still on hand with the customer at any point in time, the Company’s repurchase obligations relating to inventory cannot be reasonably estimated. Repurchases of inventory by the Company under these arrangements have been insignificant to date. The Company believes that, based on historical experience, the likelihood of a material loss pursuant to these inventory repurchase obligations is remote.

The Company provides additional financial guarantees to finance companies on behalf of certain customers. The majority of these guarantees are for an indefinite period of time, where the Company would be required to perform if the customer is in default with the finance company related to purchases made from the Company. The Company reviews the underlying credit for these guarantees on at least an annual basis. As of July 31, 2016 and January 31, 2016, the outstanding amount of guarantees under these arrangements totaled $5.0 million and $4.6 million, respectively. The Company believes that, based on historical experience, the likelihood of a material loss pursuant to the above guarantees is remote.

Contingencies

Prior to fiscal 2004, one of the Company’s subsidiaries, located in Spain, was audited in relation to various value added tax (“VAT”) matters. As a result of those audits, the Spanish subsidiary received notices of assessment related to fiscal years 1994 through 2001 from the Regional Inspection Unit of Spain’s taxing authority that allege the subsidiary did not properly collect and remit VAT. The Spanish subsidiary appealed these assessments to the Madrid Central Economic Administrative Courts beginning in March 2010. Following the administrative court proceedings the matter was appealed to the Spanish National Appellate Court. During 2013, the Spanish National Appellate Court issued an opinion upholding the assessments for several of the assessed years. During fiscal 2015, the Madrid Central Economic Administrative Court issued a decision revoking the penalties for certain of the assessed years. During fiscal 2016, the Spanish Supreme Court issued final decisions for the assessments related to fiscal years 1996 through 2001 which barred certain of the assessed amounts. As a result of these decisions, during the three months ended July 31, 2015, the Company decreased its accrual for costs associated with this matter by $25.4 million, including $16.4 million related to an accrual for assessments and penalties recorded in “value added tax assessments” and $9.0 million related to accrued interest recorded in “interest expense” in the Consolidated Statement of Income. The Company paid the remaining assessed amounts for fiscal years 1996 through 2001 of $12.3 million during the third quarter of fiscal 2016.

During the second quarter of fiscal 2017, the Spanish National Appellate Court issued an opinion upholding the assessments for fiscal years 1994 and 1995. Although the Company believes that the Spanish subsidiary's defense to the assessments has solid legal grounds and is continuing to vigorously defend its position by appealing to the Spanish Supreme Court, certain of the amounts assessed for fiscal years 1994 and 1995 are not eligible to be appealed to the Spanish Supreme Court. As a result, the Company increased its accrual for costs associated with this matter by $2.6 million in the second quarter of fiscal 2017, including $1.5 million recorded in "value added tax assessments" and $1.1 million recorded in "interest expense" in the Consolidated Statement of Income. The Company estimates the probable liability for these remaining assessments, including various penalties and interest, was approximately $7.4 million at July 31, 2016 which is included in "accrued expenses and other liabilities" in the Consolidated Balance Sheet.

In December 2010, in a non-unanimous decision, a Brazilian appellate court overturned a 2003 trial court which had previously ruled in favor of the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary related to the imposition of certain taxes on payments abroad related to the licensing of commercial software products, commonly referred to as “CIDE tax.” The Company estimates the total exposure related to the CIDE tax, including interest, was approximately $21.9 million at July 31, 2016. The Brazilian subsidiary has appealed the unfavorable ruling to the Supreme Court and Superior Court, Brazil's two highest appellate courts. Based on the legal opinion of outside counsel, the Company believes that the chances of success on appeal of this matter are favorable and the Brazilian subsidiary intends to vigorously defend its position that the CIDE tax is not due. However, due to the lack of predictability of the Brazilian court system, the Company has concluded that it is reasonably possible that the Brazilian subsidiary may incur a loss up to the total exposure described above. The Company believes the resolution of this litigation will not be material to the Company’s consolidated net assets or liquidity.

In addition to the CIDE tax matter discussed above, the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary has been undergoing several examinations of non-income related taxes. Given the lack of predictability of the Brazilian tax system, the Company believes that it is reasonably possible that a loss may have been incurred. However, due to the complex nature of the Brazilian tax system and the absence of communication from the local tax authorities regarding these examinations, the Company is currently unable to determine the likelihood of these examinations resulting in assessments or to estimate the amount of loss, if any, that may be reasonably possible if such assessment were to be made.

In the second quarter of fiscal 2016, the Company determined that it had additional VAT liabilities due in one of its European subsidiaries. As a result, the Company recorded a charge of $6.8 million in “value added tax assessments” in the Consolidated Statement of Income during the second quarter of fiscal 2016 representing the probable liability for VAT and associated penalties. The Company has subsequently paid all VAT associated with this matter and filed amended tax returns with the tax authorities.

The Company is subject to various other legal proceedings and claims arising in the ordinary course of business. The Company’s management does not expect that the outcome in any of these other legal proceedings, individually or collectively, will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.