Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2015
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	NOTE 12. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Environmental —We are subject to certain requirements and potential liabilities under various federal, state and local environmental laws, ordinances, and regulations. Such requirements often impose liability without regard to whether the current or previous owner or operator knew of, or was responsible for, the presence of such hazardous or toxic substances. Although we have incurred and expect to incur remediation and other environmental costs during the ordinary course of operations, we anticipate that such costs will not have a material effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. Litigation —We are party to a number of pending claims and lawsuits arising in the normal course of business. We maintain general and other liability insurance; however, certain costs of defending lawsuits, such as those below the insurance retention or deductible amount, are not covered by or are only partially covered by insurance policies, or the insurance carriers could refuse to cover certain claims in whole or in part. We regularly evaluate ultimate liability costs with respect to such claims and lawsuits. We accrue costs incurred from defending litigation as they become determinable. We do not consider our ultimate liability with respect to any single claim or lawsuit, or the aggregate of such claims and lawsuits, to be material in relation to our consolidated balance sheets, results of operations, or cash flows taken as a whole. Casualty Losses —We maintain insurance for property and casualty damage, subject to deductibles and policy terms and conditions, attributable to wind, flood, and earthquakes. We also maintain business interruption insurance. Tax Contingencies — We are subject to regular audits by federal and state tax authorities. These audits may result in additional tax liabilities. The Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) is currently auditing the tax returns of La Quinta Corporation, one of our former REITs prior to the Pre-IPO Transactions, and BRE/LQ Operating Lessee Inc., one of our former taxable REIT subsidiaries prior to the Pre-IPO Transactions, in each case for the tax years ended December 31, 2010 and 2011. We received a draft notice of proposed adjustment from the IRS on January 9, 2014, and the notice of proposed adjustment was issued to us on June 2, 2014. We submitted a timely response to the notice of proposed adjustment and, on July 7, 2014, we received an IRS 30-Day Letter proposing to impose a 100% tax on the REIT totaling $158 million for the periods under audit in which the IRS has asserted that the rent charged for these periods under the lease of hotel properties from the REIT to the taxable REIT subsidiary exceeded an arm’s length rent. In addition, the IRS proposed to eliminate $89 million of net operating loss carryforwards for the taxable REIT subsidiary for the tax years 2006 through 2009; however, in an IRS rebuttal received on September 26, 2014, the IRS conceded its proposed adjustment on this point was incorrect. We disagree with the IRS’ position with respect to rents charged by the REIT to its taxable REIT subsidiary and have appealed the proposed tax and adjustments to the IRS Appeals Office. In determining amounts payable by our taxable REIT subsidiary under the lease, we engaged a third party to prepare a transfer pricing study contemporaneous with the lease which concluded that the lease terms were consistent with an arm’s length rent as required by relevant provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the “Internal Revenue Code”) and applicable Treasury Regulations. Attorneys and others representing the Company conducted preliminary discussions regarding the appeal with the IRS Appeals Office team on March 31, 2015 and April 1, 2015. In response to a supplemental analysis submitted by the IRS economist to the Appeals Officer and provided to us on August 18, 2015, we submitted responses dated September 3, 2015 and October 1, 2015. No significant additional response or requests from the Appeals Officer have been received. We believe the IRS transfer pricing methodologies applied in the audits contain flaws and that the IRS proposed tax and adjustments are inconsistent with the U.S. federal tax laws related to REITs. We have concluded that the positions reported on our tax returns under audit by the IRS are, based on their technical merits, more-likely-than-not to be sustained upon examination. Accordingly, as of December 31, 2015, we have not established any reserves related to this proposed adjustment or any other issues reflected on the returns under examination. On November 25, 2014, we were notified that the IRS intends to examine the tax returns of the same entities subject to the 2010 and 2011 audit in each case for the tax years ended December 31, 2012 and 2013. As of December 31, 2015, we have not been advised of any proposed adjustments. Purchase Commitments —As of December 31, 2015, we had approximately $26.0 million of purchase commitments related to certain continuing redevelopment and renovation projects. Franchise Commitments —Under certain franchise agreements, we are committed to provide certain incentive payments, reimbursements, rebates, and other payments to help defray certain costs. Our obligation to fund these commitments is contingent upon certain conditions set forth in the respective franchise agreement. The franchise agreements generally require that, in the event that the franchise relationship is terminated, the franchisee is required to repay any outstanding balance plus any unamortized portion of any incentive payment. As of December 31, 2015, we had $9.1 million in outstanding commitments to various franchisees for such financial assistance.

NOTE 12. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Environmental —We are subject to certain requirements and potential liabilities under various federal, state and local environmental laws, ordinances, and regulations. Such requirements often impose liability without regard to whether the current or previous owner or operator knew of, or was responsible for, the presence of such hazardous or toxic substances. Although we have incurred and expect to incur remediation and other environmental costs during the ordinary course of operations, we anticipate that such costs will not have a material effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

Litigation —We are party to a number of pending claims and lawsuits arising in the normal course of business. We maintain general and other liability insurance; however, certain costs of defending lawsuits, such as those below the insurance retention or deductible amount, are not covered by or are only partially covered by insurance policies, or the insurance carriers could refuse to cover certain claims in whole or in part. We regularly evaluate ultimate liability costs with respect to such claims and lawsuits. We accrue costs incurred from defending litigation as they become determinable. We do not consider our ultimate liability with respect to any single claim or lawsuit, or the aggregate of such claims and lawsuits, to be material in relation to our consolidated balance sheets, results of operations, or cash flows taken as a whole.

Casualty Losses —We maintain insurance for property and casualty damage, subject to deductibles and policy terms and conditions, attributable to wind, flood, and earthquakes. We also maintain business interruption insurance.

Tax Contingencies — We are subject to regular audits by federal and state tax authorities. These audits may result in additional tax liabilities. The Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) is currently auditing the tax returns of La Quinta Corporation, one of our former REITs prior to the Pre-IPO Transactions, and BRE/LQ Operating Lessee Inc., one of our former taxable REIT subsidiaries prior to the Pre-IPO Transactions, in each case for the tax years ended December 31, 2010 and 2011. We received a draft notice of proposed adjustment from the IRS on January 9, 2014, and the notice of proposed adjustment was issued to us on June 2, 2014. We submitted a timely response to the notice of proposed adjustment and, on July 7, 2014, we received an IRS 30-Day Letter proposing to impose a 100% tax on the REIT totaling $158 million for the periods under audit in which the IRS has asserted that the rent charged for these periods under the lease of hotel properties from the REIT to the taxable REIT subsidiary exceeded an arm’s length rent. In addition, the IRS proposed to eliminate $89 million of net operating loss carryforwards for the taxable REIT subsidiary for the tax years 2006 through 2009; however, in an IRS rebuttal received on September 26, 2014, the IRS conceded its proposed adjustment on this point was incorrect. We disagree with the IRS’ position with respect to rents charged by the REIT to its taxable REIT subsidiary and have appealed the proposed tax and adjustments to the IRS Appeals Office. In determining amounts payable by our taxable REIT subsidiary under the lease, we engaged a third party to prepare a transfer pricing study contemporaneous with the lease which concluded that the lease terms were consistent with an arm’s length rent as required by relevant provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the “Internal Revenue Code”) and applicable Treasury Regulations. Attorneys and others representing the Company conducted preliminary discussions regarding the appeal with the IRS Appeals Office team on March 31, 2015 and April 1, 2015. In response to a supplemental analysis submitted by the IRS economist to the Appeals Officer and provided to us on August 18, 2015, we submitted responses dated September 3, 2015 and October 1, 2015. No significant additional response or requests from the Appeals Officer have been received. We believe the IRS transfer pricing methodologies applied in the audits contain flaws and that the IRS proposed tax and adjustments are inconsistent with the U.S. federal tax laws related to REITs. We have concluded that the positions reported on our tax returns under audit by the IRS are, based on their technical merits, more-likely-than-not to be sustained upon examination. Accordingly, as of December 31, 2015, we have not established any reserves related to this proposed adjustment or any other issues reflected on the returns under examination.

On November 25, 2014, we were notified that the IRS intends to examine the tax returns of the same entities subject to the 2010 and 2011 audit in each case for the tax years ended December 31, 2012 and 2013. As of December 31, 2015, we have not been advised of any proposed adjustments.

Purchase Commitments —As of December 31, 2015, we had approximately $26.0 million of purchase commitments related to certain continuing redevelopment and renovation projects.

Franchise Commitments —Under certain franchise agreements, we are committed to provide certain incentive payments, reimbursements, rebates, and other payments to help defray certain costs. Our obligation to fund these commitments is contingent upon certain conditions set forth in the respective franchise agreement. The franchise agreements generally require that, in the event that the franchise relationship is terminated, the franchisee is required to repay any outstanding balance plus any unamortized portion of any incentive payment. As of December 31, 2015, we had $9.1 million in outstanding commitments to various franchisees for such financial assistance.