CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2017
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 a consent to settlement (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, 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 has assessed and monitored 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 as they relate to the Company's current and ongoing compliance with the FCPA and other applicable anti-corruption laws. The monitor has recommended some changes to our policies and procedures that we have substantially adopted and are in the process of completing. The monitor 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. The third-party 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. 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, which was officially closed in favor of Avon Brazil in July 2017. 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. As in the 2002 IPI case, the 2012 IPI assessment asserts 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 2012 IPI assessment is 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 appealed this decision to the second administrative level. The 2012 IPI assessment totals approximately $356, including penalties and accrued interest. On October 3, 2017, Avon Brazil received a new tax assessment notice regarding IPI for 2014, in the total amount of approximately $270, including penalties and accrued interest. In line with the other assessments received in the past, the Brazilian tax authorities assert that the structure adopted in 2005 has no valid business purpose. Avon will vigorously contest this assessment, and presented the first defense on November 1, 2017. In the event that the 2012 and the 2017 IPI assessments are upheld, 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 and an adverse effect on the Company's Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows. 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 and in July 2017 we received the official cancellation of the 2002 assessment pursuant to the favorable decision discussed above. We believe that the likelihood that the 2012 and the 2017 IPI assessments will be upheld is reasonably possible. As stated above, we believe that the 2012 and 2017 IPI assessments are unfounded. At September 30, 2017, we have not recognized a liability for the 2012 or 2017 IPI assessments. 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. In December 2016, Avon Brazil received a favorable decision from the Federal District Court regarding this objection. This decision has been appealed by the tax authorities. 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, 2017, the liability to the taxing authorities for this IPI tax increase was approximately $185 and was classified within long-term sales taxes and taxes other than income in our Consolidated Balance Sheets, and the judicial deposit was approximately $76 and was classified within other assets in our Consolidated Balance Sheets. The net liability that does not have a corresponding judicial deposit was approximately $109 at September 30, 2017, and the interest associated with this net liability has been and will continue to be recognized in other expense, net. Our cash flow from operations has benefited as compared to our earnings as we have recognized the expense and associated interest related to this IPI tax in our Consolidated Statements of Operations; however, since May 2016, we have not made a corresponding cash payment into a judicial deposit. An unfavorable ruling to our objection of this IPI tax increase would have an adverse effect on the Company's Consolidated Statements of 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, 2017, 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 a consent to settlement (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, 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 has assessed and monitored 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 as they relate to the Company's current and ongoing compliance with the FCPA and other applicable anti-corruption laws. The monitor has recommended some changes to our policies and procedures that we have substantially adopted and are in the process of completing. The monitor 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.

The third-party 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.

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, which was officially closed in favor of Avon Brazil in July 2017. 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. As in the 2002 IPI case, the 2012 IPI assessment asserts 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 2012 IPI assessment is 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 appealed this decision to the second administrative level. The 2012 IPI assessment totals approximately $356, including penalties and accrued interest.

On October 3, 2017, Avon Brazil received a new tax assessment notice regarding IPI for 2014, in the total amount of approximately $270, including penalties and accrued interest. In line with the other assessments received in the past, the Brazilian tax authorities assert that the structure adopted in 2005 has no valid business purpose. Avon will vigorously contest this assessment, and presented the first defense on November 1, 2017.

In the event that the 2012 and the 2017 IPI assessments are upheld, 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 and an adverse effect on the Company's Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows. 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 and in July 2017 we received the official cancellation of the 2002 assessment pursuant to the favorable decision discussed above. We believe that the likelihood that the 2012 and the 2017 IPI assessments will be upheld is reasonably possible. As stated above, we believe that the 2012 and 2017 IPI assessments are unfounded. At September 30, 2017, we have not recognized a liability for the 2012 or 2017 IPI assessments.

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. In December 2016, Avon Brazil received a favorable decision from the Federal District Court regarding this objection. This decision has been appealed by the tax authorities.

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, 2017, the liability to the taxing authorities for this IPI tax increase was approximately $185 and was classified within long-term sales taxes and taxes other than income

in our Consolidated Balance Sheets, and the judicial deposit was approximately $76 and was classified within other assets in our Consolidated Balance Sheets. The net liability that does not have a corresponding judicial deposit was approximately $109 at September 30, 2017, and the interest associated with this net liability has been and will continue to be recognized in other expense, net. Our cash flow from operations has benefited as compared to our earnings as we have recognized the expense and associated interest related to this IPI tax in our Consolidated Statements of Operations; however, since May 2016, we have not made a corresponding cash payment into a judicial deposit.

An unfavorable ruling to our objection of this IPI tax increase would have an adverse effect on the Company's Consolidated Statements of 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, 2017, is not expected to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.