Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2017
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	NOTE 9. 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 — On April 25, 2016, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit, captioned Beisel v. La Quinta Holdings Inc. et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the Company’s common stock pursuant to the Company’s March 24, 2015 secondary public offering (the “March Secondary Offering”) and on behalf of purchasers of the Company’s common stock from November 19, 2014 through October 29, 2015 (the “Class Period”). On July 22, 2016, the court appointed lead plaintiff, and on September 30, 2016, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint names as defendants the Company, certain current and former Company officers, and certain current and former members of the Board of Directors, among others. The complaint alleges, among other things, that, in violation of the federal securities laws, the registration statement and prospectus filed in connection with the March Secondary Offering contained materially false and misleading information or omissions and that the Company as well as certain current and former officers made false and misleading statements in earnings releases and to analysts during the Class Period. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. The Company believes that the putative class action lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously; however, there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit. In addition, we are a party to a number of pending claims and lawsuits arising in the normal course of business, including proceedings involving tort and other general liability claims, workers’ compensation and other employee claims and intellectual property claims. We do not consider our ultimate liability with respect to any such claims or lawsuits, or the aggregate of such claims and lawsuits, to be material in relation to our consolidated financial condition, results of operations or our cash flows taken as a whole. We maintain general and other liability insurance; however, certain costs of defending lawsuits, such as those below the retention or insurance deductible amount, are not covered by or are only partially covered by insurance policies, and our insurance carriers could refuse to cover certain claims in whole or in part. We regularly evaluate our ultimate liability costs with respect to such claims and lawsuits. We accrue costs from litigation as they become probable and estimable. 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, as amended (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 IRS Appeals and provided to us on August 18, 2015, we submitted responses dated September 3, 2015 and October 1, 2015. Our most recent meeting with the IRS Appeals Office team occurred on January 25, 2017. Our discussions with IRS Appeals are ongoing. We believe the IRS transfer pricing methodologies applied in the audits contain flaws and that the IRS proposed tax and adjustments are inconsistent with U.S. transfer pricing principles and 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 March 31, 2017, 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 intended 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. We have received several draft notices of proposed adjustment proposing a transfer-pricing related assessment of approximately $18 million for 2013 and adjustments to our net operating losses for the years 2006 through 2009. Based on our analysis of these draft notices, we believe the IRS transfer pricing methodologies and NOL disallowances applied in the 2012-2013 audit contains the same flaws present in the 2010-2011 audit and that the IRS proposed tax and adjustments are inconsistent with U.S. transfer pricing principles and 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 March 31, 2017, we have not established any reserves related to this proposed adjustment or any other issues reflected on the returns under examination. On November 1, 2016, the IRS notified the Company that it intends to audit the tax return of one of its subsidiaries, Lodge Holdco II L.L.C., for the short taxable year ended April 13, 2014. The audit is in its early stages and no issues have been communicated to the Company at this point. As Lodge Holdco II L.L.C. was treated as a partnership for the taxable year ended April 13, 2014, any tax resulting from this examination would be assessed at the partner level rather than against the Company. Accordingly, no provision has been recorded for this examination. Purchase Commitments — As of March 31, 2017, we had approximately $49.4 million of purchase commitments primarily related to certain continuing redevelopment and renovation projects and information technology enhancements. 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 March 31, 2017, we had $22.7 million in outstanding commitments owed to various franchisees for such financial assistance.

NOTE 9. 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 — On April 25, 2016, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit, captioned Beisel v. La Quinta Holdings Inc. et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the Company’s common stock pursuant to the Company’s March 24, 2015 secondary public offering (the “March Secondary Offering”) and on behalf of purchasers of the Company’s common stock from November 19, 2014 through October 29, 2015 (the “Class Period”). On July 22, 2016, the court appointed lead plaintiff, and on September 30, 2016, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint names as defendants the Company, certain current and former Company officers, and certain current and former members of the Board of Directors, among others. The complaint alleges, among other things, that, in violation of the federal securities laws, the registration statement and prospectus filed in connection with the March Secondary Offering contained materially false and misleading information or omissions and that the Company as well as certain current and former officers made false and misleading statements in earnings releases and to analysts during the Class Period. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. The Company believes that the putative class action lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously; however, there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit.

In addition, we are a party to a number of pending claims and lawsuits arising in the normal course of business, including proceedings involving tort and other general liability claims, workers’ compensation and other employee claims and intellectual property claims. We do not consider our ultimate liability with respect to any such claims or lawsuits, or the aggregate of such claims and lawsuits, to be material in relation to our consolidated financial condition, results of operations or our cash flows taken as a whole.

We maintain general and other liability insurance; however, certain costs of defending lawsuits, such as those below the retention or insurance deductible amount, are not covered by or are only partially covered by insurance policies, and our insurance carriers could refuse to cover certain claims in whole or in part. We regularly evaluate our ultimate liability costs with respect to such claims and lawsuits. We accrue costs from litigation as they become probable and estimable.

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, as amended (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 IRS Appeals and provided to us on August 18, 2015, we submitted responses dated September 3, 2015 and October 1, 2015. Our most recent meeting with the IRS Appeals Office team occurred on January 25, 2017. Our discussions with IRS Appeals are ongoing. We believe the IRS transfer pricing methodologies applied in the audits contain flaws and that the IRS proposed tax and adjustments are inconsistent with U.S. transfer pricing principles and 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 March 31, 2017, 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 intended 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. We have received several draft notices of proposed adjustment proposing a transfer-pricing related assessment of approximately $18 million for 2013 and adjustments to our net operating losses for the years 2006 through 2009. Based on our analysis of these draft notices, we believe the IRS transfer pricing methodologies and NOL disallowances applied in the 2012-2013 audit contains the same flaws present in the 2010-2011 audit and that the IRS proposed tax and adjustments are inconsistent with U.S. transfer pricing principles and 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 March 31, 2017, we have not established any reserves related to this proposed adjustment or any other issues reflected on the returns under examination.

On November 1, 2016, the IRS notified the Company that it intends to audit the tax return of one of its subsidiaries, Lodge Holdco II L.L.C., for the short taxable year ended April 13, 2014. The audit is in its early stages and no issues have been communicated to the Company at this point. As Lodge Holdco II L.L.C. was treated as a partnership for the taxable year ended April 13, 2014, any tax resulting from this examination would be assessed at the partner level rather than against the Company. Accordingly, no provision has been recorded for this examination.

Purchase Commitments — As of March 31, 2017, we had approximately $49.4 million of purchase commitments primarily related to certain continuing redevelopment and renovation projects and information technology enhancements.

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 March 31, 2017, we had $22.7 million in outstanding commitments owed to various franchisees for such financial assistance.