CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2016
Loss Contingency [Abstract]
Contingencies	CONTINGENCIES Settlements of FCPA Investigations As previously reported, we engaged outside counsel to conduct an internal investigation and compliance reviews focused on compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ("FCPA") and related U.S. and foreign laws in China and additional countries. The internal investigation, which was conducted under the oversight of our Audit Committee, began in June 2008 and along with the compliance reviews, was completed in 2014. Following our voluntary reporting of the internal investigation to both the U.S. Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) and our subsequent cooperation with those agencies, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "USDC") approved in December 2014 a deferred prosecution agreement (“DPA”) entered into between the Company and the DOJ related to charges of violations of the books and records and internal controls provisions of the FCPA. In addition, Avon Products (China) Co. Ltd., a subsidiary of the Company operating in China, pleaded guilty to conspiring to violate the books and records provision of the FCPA and was sentenced by the USDC to pay a $68 fine. The SEC also filed a complaint against the Company charging violations of the books and records and internal controls provisions of the FCPA and the Consent which was approved in a judgment entered by the USDC in January 2015, and included $67 in disgorgement and prejudgment interest. The DPA, the above-mentioned guilty plea and the Consent resolved the SEC’s and the DOJ’s investigations of the Company’s compliance with the FCPA and related U.S. laws in China and additional countries. The fine was paid in December 2014 and the payment to the SEC was made in January 2015. Under the DPA, the DOJ will defer criminal prosecution of the Company for a term of three years. If the Company remains in compliance with the DPA during its term, the charges against the Company will be dismissed with prejudice. Under the DPA, the Company also represented that it has implemented and agreed that it will continue to implement a compliance and ethics program designed to prevent and detect violations of the FCPA and other applicable anti-corruption laws throughout its operations. Under the DPA and the Consent, among other things, the Company agreed to have a compliance monitor (the "monitor"). During July 2015, the Company engaged a monitor, who had been approved by the DOJ and SEC. With the approval of the DOJ and the SEC, the monitor can be replaced by the Company no earlier than 18 months after their engagement, if the Company agrees to undertake self-reporting obligations for the remainder of the monitoring period. The monitoring period is scheduled to expire in July 2018. There can be no assurance as to whether or when the DOJ and the SEC will approve replacing the monitor with the Company’s self-reporting. If the DOJ determines that the Company has knowingly violated the DPA, the DOJ may commence prosecution or extend the term of the DPA, including the monitoring provisions described above, for up to one year. The monitor is assessing and monitoring the Company's compliance with the terms of the DPA and the Consent by evaluating, among other things, the Company's internal accounting controls, recordkeeping and financial reporting policies and procedures. The monitor has recommended some changes to our policies and procedures that we are in the process of adopting, and may make additional recommendations that we must adopt unless they are unduly burdensome or otherwise inadvisable, in which case we may propose alternatives, which the DOJ and the SEC may or may not accept. In addition, operating under the oversight of the monitor may result in additional time and attention on these matters by members of our management, which may divert their time from the operation of our business. Assuming the monitor is replaced by a self-reporting period, the Company’s self-reporting obligations may be costly or time-consuming. The costs incurred in connection with ongoing compliance with the DPA and the Consent, including the monitorship, have not been material to date and we do not anticipate material costs going forward. We currently cannot estimate the costs that we are likely to incur in connection with self-reporting, if applicable, and any additional costs of implementing the changes, if any, to our policies and procedures required by the monitor. Litigation Matters In July and August 2010, derivative actions were filed in state court against certain present or former officers and/or directors of the Company (Carol J. Parker, derivatively on behalf of Avon Products, Inc. v. W. Don Cornwell, et al. and Avon Products, Inc. as nominal defendant (filed in the New York Supreme Court, Nassau County, Index No. 600570/2010); Lynne Schwartz, derivatively on behalf of Avon Products, Inc. v. Andrea Jung, et al. and Avon Products, Inc. as nominal defendant (filed in the New York Supreme Court, New York County, Index No. 651304/2010)). On November 22, 2013, a derivative action was filed in federal court against certain present or former officers and/or directors of the Company and following the federal court's dismissal, an additional action was subsequently filed in New York state court on May 1, 2015 (Sylvia Pritika, derivatively on behalf of Avon Products, Inc. v. Andrea Jung, et al. and Avon Products, Inc. as nominal defendant (filed in the New York Supreme Court, New York County, Index No. 651479/2015)). The claims asserted in one or more of these actions include alleged breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment, relating to the Company's compliance with the FCPA, including the adequacy of the Company's internal controls. The relief sought against the individual defendants in one or more of these derivative actions include certain declaratory and equitable relief, restitution, damages, exemplary damages and interest. The Company is a nominal defendant, and no relief is sought against the Company itself. On April 28, 2015, an action was filed to seek enforcement of demands for the inspection of certain of the Company’s books and records (Belle Cohen v. Avon Products, Inc. (filed in the New York Supreme Court, New York County, Index No. 651418/2015)). The parties reached agreements to settle the derivative and books and records actions. The terms of settlement include certain corporate governance measures as well as releases of claims and payment of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees in the amount of $4. On March 30, 2016, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement, and on August 1, 2016, the court entered an order and judgment granting final approval of the settlement. The $4 was paid by the Company's insurers. The order and judgment approving the settlement has become final and Avon has until November 1, 2016 to implement the agreed corporate governance measures. In light of the settlement, stipulations voluntarily dismissing or discontinuing the actions with prejudice have been filed in the Pritika and Parker actions. On July 6, 2011, a purported shareholder's class action complaint (City of Brockton Retirement System v. Avon Products, Inc., et al., No. 11-CIV-4665) was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain present or former officers and/or directors of the Company. On September 29, 2011, the Court appointed LBBW Asset Management Investmentgesellschaft mbH and SGSS Deutschland Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH as lead plaintiffs and Motley Rice LLC as lead counsel. Lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on June 14, 2012. On September 29, 2014, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and also granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint. On October 24, 2014, plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint on behalf of a purported class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Avon's common stock from July 31, 2006 through and including October 26, 2011. The second amended complaint names as defendants the Company and two individuals and asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on allegedly false or misleading statements and omissions with respect to, among other things, the Company's compliance with the FCPA, including the adequacy of the Company's internal controls. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and declaratory, injunctive, and other equitable relief. Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on November 21, 2014. The parties reached an agreement on a settlement of this class action. The terms of settlement include releases by members of the class of claims against the Company and the individual defendants and payment of $62. Approximately $60 of the settlement was paid by the Company's insurers and approximately $2 was paid by the Company (which represented the remaining deductible under the Company’s applicable insurance policy). On August 21, 2015, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement, and on August 24, 2016, the court entered an order and judgment granting final approval of the settlement. There has been an appeal of the court's separate order relating to plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, dated August 25, 2016. However, no appeal was filed from the court's August 24, 2016 order and judgment approving the settlement and thus that judgment has now become final. Between December 23, 2014 and March 12, 2015, two purported class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York -- Poovathur v. Avon Products, Inc., et al. (No. 14-CV-10083) and McCoy et al. v. Avon Products, Inc., et al. (No. 15-CV-01828) asserting claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") against the Company, the Plan's administrator, benefits board and investment committee, and certain individuals alleged to have served as Plan fiduciaries. On April 8, 2015, the Court consolidated the two actions and recaptioned the consolidated case as In re 2014 Avon Products, Inc. ERISA Litigation, (No. 14-CV-10083). On May 8, 2015, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint, asserting claims for alleged breach of fiduciary duty and failure to monitor under ERISA on behalf of a purported class of participants in and beneficiaries of the Plan who invested in and/or held shares of the Avon Common Stock Fund between July 31, 2006 and May 1, 2014 and between December 14, 2011 and the present. Plaintiffs seek, inter alia, certain monetary relief, damages, and declaratory, injunctive and other equitable relief. On July 9, 2015, Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint. The parties reached an agreement on a settlement of this class action. The terms of settlement include releases by members of the class of claims against the Company and the individual defendants and payment of approximately $6. Approximately $5 of the settlement was paid by the Company’s insurer and approximately $1 was paid by the Company (which represented the remaining deductible under the Company’s applicable insurance policy). On June 7, 2016, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement, and on October 11, 2016, the court held a hearing to consider final approval of the settlement and ordered the parties to submit additional documentation in support of the settlement by November 4, 2016. If the settlement is not approved by the court, or is otherwise terminated before it is finalized, the Company will be unable to predict the outcome of this matter. Furthermore, in that event, it is reasonably possible that the Company may incur a loss in connection with this matter, which the Company is unable to reasonably estimate. Under some circumstances, any losses incurred in connection with adverse outcomes in the litigation matters described above could be material. Brazilian Tax Assessments In 2002, our Brazilian subsidiary received an excise tax (IPI) assessment from the Brazilian tax authorities for alleged tax deficiencies during the years 1997-1998. In December 2012, additional assessments were received for the year 2008 with respect to excise tax (IPI) and taxes charged on gross receipts (PIS and COFINS). In the second quarter of 2014, the PIS and COFINS assessments were officially closed in favor of Avon Brazil. The 2002 and the 2012 IPI assessments assert that the establishment in 1995 of separate manufacturing and distribution companies in Brazil was done without a valid business purpose and that Avon Brazil did not observe minimum pricing rules to define the taxable basis of excise tax. The structure adopted in 1995 is comparable to that used by many other companies in Brazil. We believe that our Brazilian corporate structure is appropriate, both operationally and legally, and that the 2002 and 2012 IPI assessments are unfounded. These matters are being vigorously contested. In January 2013, we filed a protest seeking a first administrative level review with respect to the 2012 IPI assessment. In July 2013, the 2012 IPI assessment was upheld at the first administrative level and we have appealed this decision to the second administrative level. The 2012 IPI assessment totals approximately $331, including penalties and accrued interest. In October 2010, the 2002 IPI assessment was upheld at the first administrative level at an amount reduced to approximately $29 from approximately $68, including penalties and accrued interest. We appealed this decision to the second administrative level, which ruled in favor of Avon in March 2015 and canceled the 2002 IPI assessment. The Brazilian tax authorities' appeal to this favorable decision regarding the 2002 IPI assessment is still pending. In the event that the 2002 or 2012 IPI assessments are upheld at the last administrative level, it may be necessary for us to provide security to pursue further appeals, which, depending on the circumstances, may result in a charge to earnings. It is not possible to reasonably estimate the likelihood or potential amount of assessments that may be issued for subsequent periods (tax years up through 2010 are closed by statute). However, other similar IPI assessments involving different periods (1998-2001) have been canceled and officially closed in our favor by the second administrative level. We believe that the likelihood that the 2002 IPI assessment will be upheld on any further appeal is remote and the likelihood that the 2012 IPI assessment will be upheld is reasonably possible. As stated above, we believe that the 2002 and 2012 IPI assessments are unfounded. Brazil IPI Tax on Cosmetics In May 2015, an Executive Decree on certain cosmetics went into effect in Brazil which increased the amount of IPI taxes that are to be remitted by Avon Brazil to the taxing authority on the sales of cosmetic products subject to IPI. Avon Brazil filed an objection to this IPI tax increase on the basis that it is not constitutional. From May 2015 through April 2016 Avon Brazil remitted the taxes associated with this IPI tax increase into a judicial deposit which would be remitted to the taxing authorities in the event that we are not successful in our objection to the tax increase. In May 2016, Avon Brazil received a favorable preliminary decision on its objection to the tax and was granted a preliminary injunction. As a result, beginning in May 2016 Avon Brazil is no longer required to remit the taxes associated with IPI into a judicial deposit. As the IPI tax increase remains in effect, Avon Brazil is continuing to recognize the IPI taxes associated with the May 2015 Executive Decree as a liability. At September 30, 2016, the liability to the taxing authorities for this IPI tax increase was approximately $105 and was classified within other liabilities in the Consolidated Balance Sheets, and the judicial deposit was approximately $68 and was classified within other assets in the Consolidated Balance Sheets. The net liability that does not have a corresponding judicial deposit was $37 at September 30, 2016, and the accretion expense associated with this net liability will be recognized in other expense, net. An unfavorable ruling to our objection of this IPI tax increase would have an adverse effect on our consolidated cash flows as Avon Brazil would have to remit the liability owed to the taxing authorities. This amount would be partially offset by the amount of the judicial deposit held by Avon Brazil. We are not able to reliably predict the timing of the outcome of our objection to this tax increase. Other Matters Various other lawsuits and claims, arising in the ordinary course of business or related to businesses previously sold, are pending or threatened against Avon. In management's opinion, based on its review of the information available at this time, the total cost of resolving such other contingencies at September 30, 2016, is not expected to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

CONTINGENCIES

Settlements of FCPA Investigations

As previously reported, we engaged outside counsel to conduct an internal investigation and compliance reviews focused on compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ("FCPA") and related U.S. and foreign laws in China and additional countries. The internal investigation, which was conducted under the oversight of our Audit Committee, began in June 2008 and along with the compliance reviews, was completed in 2014.

Following our voluntary reporting of the internal investigation to both the U.S. Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) and our subsequent cooperation with those agencies, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "USDC") approved in December 2014 a deferred prosecution agreement (“DPA”) entered into between the Company and the DOJ related to charges of violations of the books and records and internal controls provisions of the FCPA. In addition, Avon Products (China) Co. Ltd., a subsidiary of the Company operating in China, pleaded guilty to conspiring to violate the books and records provision of the FCPA and was sentenced by the USDC to pay a $68 fine. The SEC also filed a complaint against the Company charging violations of the books and records and internal controls provisions of the FCPA and the Consent which was approved in a judgment entered by the USDC in January 2015, and included $67 in disgorgement and prejudgment interest. The DPA, the above-mentioned guilty plea and the Consent resolved the SEC’s and the DOJ’s investigations of the Company’s compliance with the FCPA and related U.S. laws in China and additional countries. The fine was paid in December 2014 and the payment to the SEC was made in January 2015.

Under the DPA, the DOJ will defer criminal prosecution of the Company for a term of three years. If the Company remains in compliance with the DPA during its term, the charges against the Company will be dismissed with prejudice. Under the DPA, the Company also represented that it has implemented and agreed that it will continue to implement a compliance and ethics program designed to prevent and detect violations of the FCPA and other applicable anti-corruption laws throughout its operations.

Under the DPA and the Consent, among other things, the Company agreed to have a compliance monitor (the "monitor"). During July 2015, the Company engaged a monitor, who had been approved by the DOJ and SEC. With the approval of the DOJ and the SEC, the monitor can be replaced by the Company no earlier than 18 months after their engagement, if the Company agrees to undertake self-reporting obligations for the remainder of the monitoring period. The monitoring period is scheduled to expire in July 2018. There can be no assurance as to whether or when the DOJ and the SEC will approve replacing the monitor with the Company’s self-reporting. If the DOJ determines that the Company has knowingly violated the DPA, the DOJ may commence prosecution or extend the term of the DPA, including the monitoring provisions described above, for up to one year.

The monitor is assessing and monitoring the Company's compliance with the terms of the DPA and the Consent by evaluating, among other things, the Company's internal accounting controls, recordkeeping and financial reporting policies and procedures. The monitor has recommended some changes to our policies and procedures that we are in the process of adopting, and may make additional recommendations that we must adopt unless they are unduly burdensome or otherwise inadvisable, in which case we may propose alternatives, which the DOJ and the SEC may or may not accept. In addition, operating under the oversight of the monitor may result in additional time and attention on these matters by members of our management, which may divert their time from the operation of our business. Assuming the monitor is replaced by a self-reporting period, the Company’s self-reporting obligations may be costly or time-consuming.

The costs incurred in connection with ongoing compliance with the DPA and the Consent, including the monitorship, have not been material to date and we do not anticipate material costs going forward. We currently cannot estimate the costs that we are likely to incur in connection with self-reporting, if applicable, and any additional costs of implementing the changes, if any, to our policies and procedures required by the monitor.

Litigation Matters

In July and August 2010, derivative actions were filed in state court against certain present or former officers and/or directors of the Company (Carol J. Parker, derivatively on behalf of Avon Products, Inc. v. W. Don Cornwell, et al. and Avon Products, Inc. as nominal defendant (filed in the New York Supreme Court, Nassau County, Index No. 600570/2010); Lynne Schwartz, derivatively on behalf of Avon Products, Inc. v. Andrea Jung, et al. and Avon Products, Inc. as nominal defendant (filed in the New York Supreme Court, New York County, Index No. 651304/2010)). On November 22, 2013, a derivative action was filed in federal court against certain present or former officers and/or directors of the Company and following the federal court's dismissal, an additional action was subsequently filed in New York state court on May 1, 2015 (Sylvia Pritika, derivatively on behalf of Avon Products, Inc. v. Andrea Jung, et al. and Avon Products, Inc. as nominal defendant (filed in the New York Supreme Court, New York County, Index No. 651479/2015)). The claims asserted in one or more of these actions include alleged breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment, relating to the Company's compliance with the FCPA, including the adequacy of the Company's internal controls. The relief sought against the individual defendants in one or more of these derivative actions include certain declaratory and equitable relief, restitution, damages, exemplary damages and interest. The Company is a nominal defendant, and no relief is sought against the Company itself. On April 28, 2015, an action was filed to seek enforcement of demands for the inspection of certain of the Company’s books and records (Belle Cohen v. Avon Products, Inc. (filed in the New York Supreme Court, New York County, Index No. 651418/2015)). The parties reached agreements to settle the derivative and books and records actions. The terms of settlement include certain corporate governance measures as well as releases of claims and payment of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees in the amount of $4. On March 30, 2016, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement, and on August 1, 2016, the court entered an order and judgment granting final approval of the settlement. The $4 was paid by the Company's insurers. The order and judgment approving the settlement has become final and Avon has until November 1, 2016 to implement the agreed corporate governance measures. In light of the settlement, stipulations voluntarily dismissing or discontinuing the actions with prejudice have been filed in the Pritika and Parker actions.

On July 6, 2011, a purported shareholder's class action complaint (City of Brockton Retirement System v. Avon Products, Inc., et al., No. 11-CIV-4665) was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain present or former officers and/or directors of the Company. On September 29, 2011, the Court appointed LBBW Asset Management Investmentgesellschaft mbH and SGSS Deutschland Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH as lead plaintiffs and Motley Rice LLC as lead counsel. Lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on June 14, 2012. On September 29, 2014, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and also granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint. On October 24, 2014, plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint on behalf of a purported class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Avon's common stock from July 31, 2006 through and including October 26, 2011. The second amended complaint names as defendants the Company and two individuals and asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on allegedly false or misleading statements and omissions with respect to, among other things, the Company's compliance with the FCPA, including the adequacy of the Company's internal controls. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and declaratory, injunctive, and other equitable relief. Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on November 21, 2014. The parties reached an agreement on a settlement of this class action. The terms of settlement include releases by members of the class of claims against the Company and the individual defendants and payment of $62. Approximately $60 of the settlement was paid by the Company's insurers and approximately $2 was paid by the Company (which represented the remaining deductible under the Company’s applicable insurance policy). On August 21, 2015, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement, and on August 24, 2016, the court entered an order and judgment granting final approval of the settlement. There has been an appeal of the court's separate order relating to plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, dated August 25, 2016. However, no appeal was filed from the court's August 24, 2016 order and judgment approving the settlement and thus that judgment has now become final.

Between December 23, 2014 and March 12, 2015, two purported class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York -- Poovathur v. Avon Products, Inc., et al. (No. 14-CV-10083) and McCoy et al. v. Avon Products, Inc., et al. (No. 15-CV-01828) asserting claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") against the Company, the Plan's administrator, benefits board and investment committee, and certain individuals alleged to have served as Plan fiduciaries. On April 8, 2015, the Court consolidated the two actions and recaptioned the consolidated case as In re 2014 Avon Products, Inc. ERISA Litigation, (No. 14-CV-10083). On May 8, 2015, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint, asserting claims for alleged breach of fiduciary duty and failure to monitor under ERISA on behalf of a purported class of participants in and beneficiaries of the Plan who invested in and/or held shares of the Avon Common Stock Fund between July 31, 2006 and May 1, 2014 and between December 14, 2011 and the present. Plaintiffs seek, inter alia, certain monetary relief, damages, and declaratory, injunctive and other equitable relief. On July 9, 2015, Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint. The parties reached an agreement on a settlement of this class action. The terms of settlement include releases by members of the class of claims against the Company and the individual defendants and payment of approximately $6. Approximately $5 of the settlement was paid by the Company’s insurer and approximately $1 was paid by the Company (which represented the remaining deductible under the Company’s applicable insurance policy). On June 7, 2016, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement, and on October 11, 2016, the court held a hearing to consider final approval of the settlement and ordered the parties to submit additional documentation in support of the settlement by November 4, 2016. If the settlement is not approved by the court, or is otherwise terminated before it is finalized, the Company will be unable to predict the outcome of this matter. Furthermore, in that event, it is reasonably possible that the Company may incur a loss in connection with this matter, which the Company is unable to reasonably estimate.

Under some circumstances, any losses incurred in connection with adverse outcomes in the litigation matters described above could be material.

Brazilian Tax Assessments

In 2002, our Brazilian subsidiary received an excise tax (IPI) assessment from the Brazilian tax authorities for alleged tax deficiencies during the years 1997-1998. In December 2012, additional assessments were received for the year 2008 with respect to excise tax (IPI) and taxes charged on gross receipts (PIS and COFINS). In the second quarter of 2014, the PIS and COFINS assessments were officially closed in favor of Avon Brazil. The 2002 and the 2012 IPI assessments assert that the establishment in 1995 of separate manufacturing and distribution companies in Brazil was done without a valid business purpose and that Avon Brazil did not observe minimum pricing rules to define the taxable basis of excise tax. The structure adopted in 1995 is comparable to that used by many other companies in Brazil. We believe that our Brazilian corporate structure is appropriate, both operationally and legally, and that the 2002 and 2012 IPI assessments are unfounded.

These matters are being vigorously contested. In January 2013, we filed a protest seeking a first administrative level review with respect to the 2012 IPI assessment. In July 2013, the 2012 IPI assessment was upheld at the first administrative level and we have appealed this decision to the second administrative level. The 2012 IPI assessment totals approximately $331, including penalties and accrued interest. In October 2010, the 2002 IPI assessment was upheld at the first administrative level at an amount reduced to approximately $29 from approximately $68, including penalties and accrued interest. We appealed this decision to the second administrative level, which ruled in favor of Avon in March 2015 and canceled the 2002 IPI assessment. The Brazilian tax authorities' appeal to this favorable decision regarding the 2002 IPI assessment is still pending.

In the event that the 2002 or 2012 IPI assessments are upheld at the last administrative level, it may be necessary for us to provide security to pursue further appeals, which, depending on the circumstances, may result in a charge to earnings. It is not possible to reasonably estimate the likelihood or potential amount of assessments that may be issued for subsequent periods (tax years up through 2010 are closed by statute). However, other similar IPI assessments involving different periods (1998-2001) have been canceled and officially closed in our favor by the second administrative level. We believe that the likelihood that the 2002 IPI assessment will be upheld on any further appeal is remote and the likelihood that the 2012 IPI assessment will be upheld is reasonably possible. As stated above, we believe that the 2002 and 2012 IPI assessments are unfounded.

Brazil IPI Tax on Cosmetics

In May 2015, an Executive Decree on certain cosmetics went into effect in Brazil which increased the amount of IPI taxes that are to be remitted by Avon Brazil to the taxing authority on the sales of cosmetic products subject to IPI. Avon Brazil filed an objection to this IPI tax increase on the basis that it is not constitutional. From May 2015 through April 2016 Avon Brazil remitted the taxes associated with this IPI tax increase into a judicial deposit which would be remitted to the taxing authorities in the event that we are not successful in our objection to the tax increase.

In May 2016, Avon Brazil received a favorable preliminary decision on its objection to the tax and was granted a preliminary injunction. As a result, beginning in May 2016 Avon Brazil is no longer required to remit the taxes associated with IPI into a judicial deposit. As the IPI tax increase remains in effect, Avon Brazil is continuing to recognize the IPI taxes associated with the May 2015 Executive Decree as a liability. At September 30, 2016, the liability to the taxing authorities for this IPI tax increase was approximately $105 and was classified within other liabilities in the Consolidated Balance Sheets, and the judicial deposit was approximately $68 and was classified within other assets in the Consolidated Balance Sheets. The net liability that does not have a corresponding judicial deposit was $37 at September 30, 2016, and the accretion expense associated with this net liability will be recognized in other expense, net.

An unfavorable ruling to our objection of this IPI tax increase would have an adverse effect on our consolidated cash flows as Avon Brazil would have to remit the liability owed to the taxing authorities. This amount would be partially offset by the amount of the judicial deposit held by Avon Brazil. We are not able to reliably predict the timing of the outcome of our objection to this tax increase.

Other Matters

Various other lawsuits and claims, arising in the ordinary course of business or related to businesses previously sold, are pending or threatened against Avon. In management's opinion, based on its review of the information available at this time, the total cost of resolving such other contingencies at September 30, 2016, is not expected to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.