Litigation, Contractual Commitments and Contingent Liabilities	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Litigation, Contractual Commitments and Contingent Liabilities	Litigation, Contractual Commitments and Contingent Liabilities Litigation Nevada Sales and Use Tax The Supreme Court of Nevada decided in early 2008 that food purchased for subsequent use in the provision of complimentary and/or employee meals is exempt from use tax. Previously, such purchases were subject to use tax and the Company has claimed, but not recognized into earnings, a use tax refund totaling $32.2 million, plus interest, as a result of the 2008 decision. In early 2009, the Nevada Department of Taxation ("Department”) audited our refund claim, but has taken the position that those same purchases are now subject to sales tax; therefore, they subsequently issued a sales tax assessment totaling $27.4 million plus interest after application of our refund on use tax. On October 21, 2010, the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) issued a decision and ruled in our favor on a number of key issues, including that complimentary employee meals are not subject to sales tax. Although both the Company and the Department filed an appeal of the decision with the Nevada Tax Commission (“Commission”), the case was returned to the ALJ for further factual development. The ALJ issued a second decision on March 8, 2012, reversing her previous, partially favorable ruling relating to the taxability of complimentary employee meals and affirmed the taxability of complimentary meals but limited the entire sales tax assessment to the amount of the Company's use tax refund claims resulting in no use tax refund awarded but no sales tax amounts due. The ALJ decision was affirmed in the Commission hearing on June 25, 2012 and the Commission's final decision was issued on July 31, 2012. We filed a petition for judicial review with the District Court on August 7, 2012. On March 1, 2013, the District Court judge ruled that employee meals are not subject to sales tax but affirmed the application of sales tax to complimentary patron meals. Additionally, the judge ordered a refund of the portion of our use tax refund claims filed prior to October 1, 2005 without any offsetting sales tax assessments relating to complimentary patron meals for those periods. We have appealed the District Court decision to the Nevada Supreme Court. Subsequent to a written Commission decision issued in February 2012 for another gaming company, the Department has issued draft regulations requiring the collection of sales tax on the retail value of complimentary meals and the cost of employee meals. Although the Commission approved the regulation on June 25, 2012, there are several additional approvals required, including by the Legislative Commission, before the regulation is finalized. On June 6, 2012, the Department issued additional guidance regarding the payment of sales tax on complimentary and employee meals, maintaining that meals are taxable as of February 15, 2012 but that the payment of the tax is due, without penalty or interest, at the earlier of (a) one month after approval of the regulation by the Legislative Commission, (b) one month after a Nevada Supreme Court decision, (c) the effective date of any legislation or (d) June 30, 2013. The Department stated that it provided this additional guidance regarding the deferral of payment requirements because the Legislative Commission has not had the opportunity to approve the regulation and because there are several ongoing appeals that have not been heard by the Commission and the Nevada Supreme Court. As of March 31, 2013 we have accrued $17.5 million in sales tax accruals on complementary meals. Due to uncertainty regarding the ultimate outcome of our pending litigation and/or the final approval and form of the pending regulation, we continue to record sales tax reserves against loss on this matter. Other The Company is party to ordinary and routine litigation incidental to our business. We do not expect the outcome of any pending litigation to have a material effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. Contractual Commitments Material changes to our aggregate indebtedness are described in Note 7, "Debt." At March 31, 2013, our estimated interest payments for the rest of the year ended December 31, 2013 are $1,511.8 million, for the years ended December 31, 2014 through 2017 are $2,024.6 million, $1,682.4 million, $1,527.9 million, and $1,273.5 million, respectively, and our estimated interest payments thereafter are $1,421.1 million. There have been no material changes of our other known contractual obligations to those set forth in our 2012 10-K. Contingent Liabilities In December 1998, Hilton Hotels Corporation ("Hilton") spun-off its gaming operations as Park Place Entertainment Corporation ("Park Place"). In connection with the spin-off, Hilton and Park Place entered into various agreements, including an Employee Benefits and Other Employment Allocation Agreement dated December 31, 1998 (the "Allocation Agreement") whereby Park Place assumed or retained, as applicable, certain liabilities and excess assets, if any, related to the Hilton Hotels Retirement Plan (the "Hilton Plan") based on the accrued benefits of Hilton employees and Park Place employees. Park Place changed its name to Caesars Entertainment, Inc., and the Company acquired Caesars Entertainment, Inc. in June 2005. In 1999 and 2005, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (the "Court") certified two nationwide classes in the lawsuit against Hilton and others alleging that the Hilton Plan's benefit formula was backloaded in violation of ERISA, and that Hilton and the other defendants failed to properly calculate Hilton Plan participants' service for vesting purposes. In May 2009, the Court issued a decision granting summary judgment to the plaintiffs. Thereafter, the Court required the parties to attempt to agree on a remedies determination and further required the parties to submit briefs to the Court in support of their positions. On September 7, 2010, the Court issued an opinion resolving certain of Hilton's and the plaintiffs' issues regarding a remedies determination and requiring the parties to confer and take other actions in an effort to resolve the remaining issues. On July 28 and 29, 2011, the Court held a hearing to address the remaining remedy issues and on August 31, 2011, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and a final Order (the “Order”). In the Order, the Court ordered, among other things, Hilton to award back payments and commence increased benefits for all class members no later than January 1, 2012 or, in the case of any individual benefit or vesting disputes, within 30 days after the final dispute resolution by the Court. On September 28, 2011, Hilton filed a Motion for Reconsideration to ask the Court to reconsider certain aspects of the Order. On October 5, 2011, Hilton filed a Notice of Appeal to appeal all aspects of the Order and all other orders in the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the "Circuit Court") and on December 22, 2011, plaintiffs filed a cross-appeal. On November 28, 2011, Hilton filed a motion to stay the implementation of the backloading remedy pending the appeal and on January 19, 2012, the Court granted Hilton's motion contingent upon Hilton posting a bond of $75.8 million by no later than February 21, 2012. On December 14, 2012, the Circuit Court affirmed the decisions of the Court. At various times prior to the Court’s 2010 opinion, we were advised by counsel for the defendants that the plaintiffs estimated that the damages were in the range of $80.0 million to $280.0 million. Counsel for the defendants further advised that approximately $50 million of the damages relates to questions regarding the proper size of the class and the amount, if any, of damages to any additional class members due to issues with Hilton’s record keeping. The Company received a letter from Hilton dated October 7, 2009 notifying the Company for the first time of this lawsuit and alleging that the Company has potential liability for the above described claims under the terms of the Allocation Agreement. Based on the terms of the Allocation Agreement, the Company believes its maximum potential exposure is approximately 30 percent to 33 percent of the amount ultimately awarded as damages. The Company is not a party to the proceedings between the plaintiffs and the defendants and has not participated in the defense of the litigation or in any discussions between the plaintiffs and the defendants about potential remedies or damages. Further, the Company does not have access to information sufficient to enable the Company to make an independent judgment about the possible range of loss in connection with this matter. Based on conversations between our representative of the Company and a representative of the defendants, the Company believes it is probable that damages will be at least $80.0 million and, accordingly, the Company recorded a charge of $25.0 million in accordance with FASB Codification Subtopic 450, Contingencies, during the second quarter 2010 in relation to this matter. The Company has not changed its belief respecting the damages which may be awarded in this lawsuit as a result of the 2010 opinion of the Court, the Order, or the Circuit Court's rulings. The Company also continues to believe that it may have various defenses if a claim under the Allocation Agreement is asserted against the Company, including defenses as to the amount of damages. Because the Company has not had access to sufficient information regarding this matter, we cannot at this time predict the ultimate outcome of this matter or the possible additional loss, if any.

Litigation, Contractual Commitments and Contingent Liabilities

Litigation

Nevada Sales and Use Tax

The Supreme Court of Nevada decided in early 2008 that food purchased for subsequent use in the provision of complimentary and/or employee meals is exempt from use tax. Previously, such purchases were subject to use tax and the Company has claimed, but not recognized into earnings, a use tax refund totaling $32.2 million, plus interest, as a result of the 2008 decision. In early 2009, the Nevada Department of Taxation ("Department”) audited our refund claim, but has taken the position that those same purchases are now subject to sales tax; therefore, they subsequently issued a sales tax assessment totaling $27.4 million plus interest after application of our refund on use tax.

On October 21, 2010, the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) issued a decision and ruled in our favor on a number of key issues, including that complimentary employee meals are not subject to sales tax. Although both the Company and the Department filed an appeal of the decision with the Nevada Tax Commission (“Commission”), the case was returned to the ALJ for further factual development. The ALJ issued a second decision on March 8, 2012, reversing her previous, partially favorable ruling relating to the taxability of complimentary employee meals and affirmed the taxability of complimentary meals but limited the entire sales tax assessment to the amount of the Company's use tax refund claims resulting in no use tax refund awarded but no sales tax amounts due. The ALJ decision was affirmed in the Commission hearing on June 25, 2012 and the Commission's final decision was issued on July 31, 2012. We filed a petition for judicial review with the District Court on August 7, 2012. On March 1, 2013, the District Court judge ruled that employee meals are not subject to sales tax but affirmed the application of sales tax to complimentary patron meals. Additionally, the judge ordered a refund of the portion of our use tax refund claims filed prior to October 1, 2005 without any offsetting sales tax assessments relating to complimentary patron meals for those periods. We have appealed the District Court decision to the Nevada Supreme Court.

Subsequent to a written Commission decision issued in February 2012 for another gaming company, the Department has issued draft regulations requiring the collection of sales tax on the retail value of complimentary meals and the cost of employee meals. Although the Commission approved the regulation on June 25, 2012, there are several additional approvals required, including by the Legislative Commission, before the regulation is finalized. On June 6, 2012, the Department issued additional guidance regarding the payment of sales tax on complimentary and employee meals, maintaining that meals are taxable as of February 15, 2012 but that the payment of the tax is due, without penalty or interest, at the earlier of (a) one month after approval of the regulation by the Legislative Commission, (b) one month after a Nevada Supreme Court decision, (c) the effective date of any legislation or (d) June 30, 2013. The Department stated that it provided this additional guidance regarding the deferral of payment requirements because the Legislative Commission has not had the opportunity to approve the regulation and because there are several ongoing appeals that have not been heard by the Commission and the Nevada Supreme Court.

As of March 31, 2013 we have accrued $17.5 million in sales tax accruals on complementary meals. Due to uncertainty regarding the ultimate outcome of our pending litigation and/or the final approval and form of the pending regulation, we continue to record sales tax reserves against loss on this matter.

Other

The Company is party to ordinary and routine litigation incidental to our business. We do not expect the outcome of any pending litigation to have a material effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

Contractual Commitments

Material changes to our aggregate indebtedness are described in Note 7, "Debt." At March 31, 2013, our estimated interest payments for the rest of the year ended December 31, 2013 are $1,511.8 million, for the years ended December 31, 2014 through 2017 are $2,024.6 million, $1,682.4 million, $1,527.9 million, and $1,273.5 million, respectively, and our estimated interest payments thereafter are $1,421.1 million.

There have been no material changes of our other known contractual obligations to those set forth in our 2012 10-K.

Contingent Liabilities

In December 1998, Hilton Hotels Corporation ("Hilton") spun-off its gaming operations as Park Place Entertainment Corporation ("Park Place"). In connection with the spin-off, Hilton and Park Place entered into various agreements, including an Employee Benefits and Other Employment Allocation Agreement dated December 31, 1998 (the "Allocation Agreement") whereby Park Place assumed or retained, as applicable, certain liabilities and excess assets, if any, related to the Hilton Hotels Retirement Plan (the "Hilton Plan") based on the accrued benefits of Hilton employees and Park Place employees. Park Place changed its name to Caesars Entertainment, Inc., and the Company acquired Caesars Entertainment, Inc. in June 2005. In 1999 and 2005, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (the "Court") certified two nationwide classes in the lawsuit against Hilton and others alleging that the Hilton Plan's benefit formula was backloaded in violation of ERISA, and that Hilton and the other defendants failed to properly calculate Hilton Plan participants' service for vesting purposes. In May 2009, the Court issued a decision granting summary judgment to the plaintiffs. Thereafter, the Court required the parties to attempt to agree on a remedies determination and further required the parties to submit briefs to the Court in support of their positions. On September 7, 2010, the Court issued an opinion resolving certain of Hilton's and the plaintiffs' issues regarding a remedies determination and requiring the parties to confer and take other actions in an effort to resolve the remaining issues. On July 28 and 29, 2011, the Court held a hearing to address the remaining remedy issues and on August 31, 2011, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and a final Order (the “Order”). In the Order, the Court ordered, among other things, Hilton to award back payments and commence increased benefits for all class members no later than January 1, 2012 or, in the case of any individual benefit or vesting disputes, within 30 days after the final dispute resolution by the Court. On September 28, 2011, Hilton filed a Motion for Reconsideration to ask the Court to reconsider certain aspects of the Order. On October 5, 2011, Hilton filed a Notice of Appeal to appeal all aspects of the Order and all other orders in the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the "Circuit Court") and on December 22, 2011, plaintiffs filed a cross-appeal. On November 28, 2011, Hilton filed a motion to stay the implementation of the backloading remedy pending the appeal and on January 19, 2012, the Court granted Hilton's motion contingent upon Hilton posting a bond of $75.8 million by no later than February 21, 2012. On December 14, 2012, the Circuit Court affirmed the decisions of the Court. At various times prior to the Court’s 2010 opinion, we were advised by counsel for the defendants that the plaintiffs estimated that the damages were in the range of $80.0 million to $280.0 million. Counsel for the defendants further advised that approximately $50 million of the damages relates to questions regarding the proper size of the class and the amount, if any, of damages to any additional class members due to issues with Hilton’s record keeping.

The Company received a letter from Hilton dated October 7, 2009 notifying the Company for the first time of this lawsuit and alleging that the Company has potential liability for the above described claims under the terms of the Allocation Agreement. Based on the terms of the Allocation Agreement, the Company believes its maximum potential exposure is approximately 30 percent to 33 percent of the amount ultimately awarded as damages. The Company is not a party to the proceedings between the plaintiffs and the defendants and has not participated in the defense of the litigation or in any discussions between the plaintiffs and the defendants about potential remedies or damages. Further, the Company does not have access to information sufficient to enable the Company to make an independent judgment about the possible range of loss in connection with this matter. Based on conversations between our representative of the Company and a representative of the defendants, the Company believes it is probable that damages will be at least $80.0 million and, accordingly, the Company recorded a charge of $25.0 million in accordance with FASB Codification Subtopic 450, Contingencies, during the second quarter 2010 in relation to this matter. The Company has not changed its belief respecting the damages which may be awarded in this lawsuit as a result of the 2010 opinion of the Court, the Order, or the Circuit Court's rulings. The Company also continues to believe that it may have various defenses if a claim under the Allocation Agreement is asserted against the Company, including defenses as to the amount of damages. Because the Company has not had access to sufficient information regarding this matter, we cannot at this time predict the ultimate outcome of this matter or the possible additional loss, if any.