Commitments and contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jul. 01, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and contingencies	Commitments and contingencies The Company is involved in litigation from time to time in the regular course of its business. Except as noted below, there are no material legal proceedings pending or known by the Company to be contemplated to which the Company is a party or to which any of its property is subject. Alabama Municipal Litigation In September 2016, the Water Works and Sewer Board of the City of Gadsden, Alabama (the “Gadsden Water Board”) filed an individual complaint in the Circuit Court of Etowah County, Alabama against certain manufacturers, suppliers and users of chemicals containing perfluorinated compounds, including the Company. On October 26, 2016, the defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Middle Division, alleging diversity of citizenship and fraudulent joinder. The Gadsden Water Board filed a motion to remand the case back to the state court and the defendants have opposed the Gadsden Water Board’s motion. The parties await a ruling from the federal court on the motion to remand. In May, 2017, the Water Works and Sewer Board of the Town of Centre, Alabama (the “Centre Water Board”) filed a very similar complaint to the Gadsden Water Board complaint in the Circuit Court of Cherokee County. On June 19, 2017, the defendants removed this case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Middle Division, again alleging diversity of citizenship and fraudulent joinder. The Centre Water Board filed a motion to remand the case back to state court. The defendants will oppose the Centre Water Board’s motion. The Company has never manufactured perfluorinated compounds, but purchased them for use in the manufacture of its carpets prior to 2007. The Gadsden and Centre Water Boards are not alleging that chemical levels in the Company’s wastewater discharge exceeded legal limits. Instead, the Gadsden and Centre Water Boards are seeking lost profits based on allegations that their customers decreased water purchases, as well as reimbursement for the cost of a filter and punitive damages. The Company intends to pursue all available defenses related to these matters. The Company does not believe that the ultimate outcome of this case will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, but there can be no assurances at this stage that the outcome will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, liquidity or cash flows in a given period. Furthermore, the Company cannot predict whether any additional civil or regulatory actions against it may arise from the allegations in this matter. Belgian Tax Matter In January 2012, the Company received a €23,789 assessment from the Belgian tax authority related to its year ended December 31, 2008, asserting that the Company had understated its Belgian taxable income for that year. The Company filed a formal protest in the first quarter of 2012 refuting the Belgian tax authority's position. The Belgian tax authority set aside the assessment in the third quarter of 2012 and refunded all related deposits, including interest income of €1,583 earned on such deposits. However, on October 23, 2012, the Belgian tax authority notified the Company of its intent to increase the Company's taxable income for the year ended December 31, 2008 under a revised theory. On December 28, 2012, the Belgian tax authority issued assessments for the years ended December 31, 2005 and December 31, 2009, in the amounts of €46,135 and €35,567, respectively, including penalties, but excluding interest. The Company filed a formal protest during the first quarter of 2013 relating to the new assessments. In September 2013, the Belgian tax authority denied the Company's protests, and the Company has brought these two years before the Court of First Appeal in Bruges. In December 2013, the Belgian tax authority issued additional assessments related to the years ended December 31, 2006, 2007, and 2010, in the amounts of €38,817, €39,635, and €43,117, respectively, including penalties, but excluding interest. The Company filed formal protests during the first quarter of 2014, refuting the Belgian tax authority's position for each of the years assessed. In the quarter ended June 28, 2014, the Company received a formal assessment for the year ended December 31, 2008, totaling €30,131, against which the Company also submitted its formal protest. All 4 additional years were brought before the Court of First Appeal in November 2014. In January of 2015, the Company met with the Court of First Appeal in Bruges and agreed with the Belgian tax authorities to consolidate and argue the issues regarding the years 2005 and 2009, and apply the ruling to all of the open years (to the extent there are no additional facts/procedural arguments in the other years). In May 2017, the statute of limitation was extended to include the calendar year 2011. On January 27, 2016, the Court of First Appeal in Bruges, Belgium ruled in favor of the Company with respect to the calendar years ending December 31, 2005 and December 31, 2009. On March 9, 2016, the Belgian tax authority lodged its Notification of Appeal with the Ghent Court of Appeal. The Company disagrees with the views of the Belgian tax authority on this matter and will persist in its vigorous defense. Nevertheless, on May 24, 2016, the tax collector representing the Belgian tax authorities imposed a lien on the Company's properties in Wielsbeke (Ooigemstraat and Breestraat), Oostrozebeke (Ingelmunstersteenweg) and Desselgem (Waregemstraat) included in the Flooring ROW segment. The purpose of the lien is to provide security for payment should the Belgian tax authority prevail on its appeal. The lien does not interfere with the Company's operations at these properties. The Company believes that adequate provisions for resolution of all contingencies, claims and pending litigation have been made for probable losses that are reasonably estimable. These contingencies are subject to significant uncertainties and we are unable to estimate the amount or range of loss, if any, in excess of amounts accrued. Although there can be no assurances, the Company does not believe that the ultimate outcome of these actions will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition but could have a material adverse effect on its results of operations, cash flows or liquidity in a given quarter or year.

Commitments and contingencies

The Company is involved in litigation from time to time in the regular course of its business. Except as noted below, there are no material legal proceedings pending or known by the Company to be contemplated to which the Company is a party or to which any of its property is subject.

Alabama Municipal Litigation

In September 2016, the Water Works and Sewer Board of the City of Gadsden, Alabama (the “Gadsden Water Board”) filed an individual complaint in the Circuit Court of Etowah County, Alabama against certain manufacturers, suppliers and users of chemicals containing perfluorinated compounds, including the Company. On October 26, 2016, the defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Middle Division, alleging diversity of citizenship and fraudulent joinder. The Gadsden Water Board filed a motion to remand the case back to the state court and the defendants have opposed the Gadsden Water Board’s motion. The parties await a ruling from the federal court on the motion to remand.

In May, 2017, the Water Works and Sewer Board of the Town of Centre, Alabama (the “Centre Water Board”) filed a very similar complaint to the Gadsden Water Board complaint in the Circuit Court of Cherokee County. On June 19, 2017, the defendants removed this case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Middle Division, again alleging diversity of citizenship and fraudulent joinder. The Centre Water Board filed a motion to remand the case back to state court. The defendants will oppose the Centre Water Board’s motion.

The Company has never manufactured perfluorinated compounds, but purchased them for use in the manufacture of its carpets prior to 2007. The Gadsden and Centre Water Boards are not alleging that chemical levels in the Company’s wastewater discharge exceeded legal limits. Instead, the Gadsden and Centre Water Boards are seeking lost profits based on allegations that their customers decreased water purchases, as well as reimbursement for the cost of a filter and punitive damages.

The Company intends to pursue all available defenses related to these matters. The Company does not believe that the ultimate outcome of this case will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, but there can be no assurances at this stage that the outcome will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, liquidity or cash flows in a given period. Furthermore, the Company cannot predict whether any additional civil or regulatory actions against it may arise from the allegations in this matter.

Belgian Tax Matter

In January 2012, the Company received a €23,789 assessment from the Belgian tax authority related to its year ended December 31, 2008, asserting that the Company had understated its Belgian taxable income for that year. The Company filed a formal protest in the first quarter of 2012 refuting the Belgian tax authority's position. The Belgian tax authority set aside the assessment in the third quarter of 2012 and refunded all related deposits, including interest income of €1,583 earned on such deposits. However, on October 23, 2012, the Belgian tax authority notified the Company of its intent to increase the Company's taxable income for the year ended December 31, 2008 under a revised theory. On December 28, 2012, the Belgian tax authority issued assessments for the years ended December 31, 2005 and December 31, 2009, in the amounts of €46,135 and €35,567, respectively, including penalties, but excluding interest. The Company filed a formal protest during the first quarter of 2013 relating to the new assessments. In September 2013, the Belgian tax authority denied the Company's protests, and the Company has brought these two years before the Court of First Appeal in Bruges. In December 2013, the Belgian tax authority issued additional assessments related to the years ended December 31, 2006, 2007, and 2010, in the amounts of €38,817, €39,635, and €43,117, respectively, including penalties, but excluding interest. The Company filed formal protests during the first quarter of 2014, refuting the Belgian tax authority's position for each of the years assessed. In the quarter ended June 28, 2014, the Company received a formal assessment for the year ended December 31, 2008, totaling €30,131, against which the Company also submitted its formal protest. All 4 additional years were brought before the Court of First Appeal in November 2014. In January of 2015, the Company met with the Court of First Appeal in Bruges and agreed with the Belgian tax authorities to consolidate and argue the issues regarding the years 2005 and 2009, and apply the ruling to all of the open years (to the extent there are no additional facts/procedural arguments in the other years). In May 2017, the statute of limitation was extended to include the calendar year 2011.

On January 27, 2016, the Court of First Appeal in Bruges, Belgium ruled in favor of the Company with respect to the calendar years ending December 31, 2005 and December 31, 2009. On March 9, 2016, the Belgian tax authority lodged its Notification of Appeal with the Ghent Court of Appeal.

The Company disagrees with the views of the Belgian tax authority on this matter and will persist in its vigorous defense. Nevertheless, on May 24, 2016, the tax collector representing the Belgian tax authorities imposed a lien on the Company's properties in Wielsbeke (Ooigemstraat and Breestraat), Oostrozebeke (Ingelmunstersteenweg) and Desselgem (Waregemstraat) included in the Flooring ROW segment. The purpose of the lien is to provide security for payment should the Belgian tax authority prevail on its appeal. The lien does not interfere with the Company's operations at these properties.

The Company believes that adequate provisions for resolution of all contingencies, claims and pending litigation have been made for probable losses that are reasonably estimable. These contingencies are subject to significant uncertainties and we are unable to estimate the amount or range of loss, if any, in excess of amounts accrued. Although there can be no assurances, the Company does not believe that the ultimate outcome of these actions will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition but could have a material adverse effect on its results of operations, cash flows or liquidity in a given quarter or year.