Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements Guarantees The Company maintains a remarketing agreement with its U.S. finance joint venture, whereby the Company is obligated to repurchase repossessed inventory at market values. The Company has an agreement with its U.S. finance joint venture which limits the Company’s purchase obligations under this arrangement to $6.0 million in the aggregate per calendar year. The Company believes that any losses that might be incurred on the resale of this equipment will not materially impact the Company’s financial position or results of operations, due to the fair value of the underlying equipment. At March 31, 2015, the Company guaranteed indebtedness owed to third parties of approximately $89.5 million, primarily related to dealer and end-user financing of equipment. Such guarantees generally obligate the Company to repay outstanding finance obligations owed to financial institutions if dealers or end users default on such loans through 2020. The Company believes the credit risk associated with these guarantees is not material to its financial position or results of operations. Losses under such guarantees have historically been insignificant. In addition, the Company generally would expect to be able to recover a significant portion of the amounts paid under such guarantees from the sale of the underlying financed farm equipment, as the fair value of such equipment is expected to be sufficient to offset a substantial portion of the amounts paid. Other The Company sells a majority of its wholesale receivables in North America and Europe to its 49% owned U.S., Canadian and European finance joint ventures. The Company also sells certain accounts receivable under factoring arrangements to financial institutions around the world. The Company reviewed the sale of such receivables and determined that these facilities should be accounted for as off-balance sheet transactions. Legal Claims and Other Matters On June 27, 2008, the Republic of Iraq filed a civil action in federal court in the Southern District of New York, Case No. 08 CIV 59617, naming as defendants one of the Company’s French subsidiaries and two of its other foreign subsidiaries that participated in the United Nations Oil for Food Program (the “Program”). Ninety-one other entities or companies also were named as defendants in the civil action due to their participation in the Program. The complaint purports to assert claims against each of the defendants seeking damages in an unspecified amount. On February 6, 2013, the federal court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The federal appeals court affirmed that decision. The plaintiff has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a Writ of Certiorari. Although the Company’s subsidiaries intend to vigorously defend against this action, it is not possible at this time to predict the outcome of this action or its impact, if any, on the Company, although if the outcome was adverse, the Company could be required to pay damages. On October 30, 2012, a third-party complaint was filed in federal court in the Southern District of Texas, Case No. 09 CIV 03884, naming as defendants one of the Company’s French subsidiaries and two of its other foreign subsidiaries. Sixty other entities or companies also were named as third-party defendants. The complaint asserts claims against the defendants, certain of which are also third-party plaintiffs, seeking unspecified damages arising from their participation in the Program. The third-party plaintiffs seek contribution from the third-party defendants. On February 12, 2014, the federal court dismissed the third-party complaint with prejudice. The third-party plaintiffs have not appealed this dismissal, but have until after the resolution of the underlying case to do so. Although the Company’s subsidiaries intend to vigorously defend against this action, it is not possible at this time to predict the outcome of the action or its impact, if any, on the Company, although if the outcome was adverse, the Company could be required to pay damages. In August 2008, as part of routine audits, the Brazilian taxing authorities disallowed deductions relating to the amortization of certain goodwill recognized in connection with a reorganization of the Company’s Brazilian operations and the related transfer of certain assets to the Company’s Brazilian subsidiaries. The amount of the tax disallowance through March 31, 2015, not including interest and penalties, was approximately 131.5 million Brazilian reais (or approximately $41.1 million). The amount ultimately in dispute will be greater because of interest and penalties. The Company has been advised by its legal and tax advisors that its position with respect to the deductions is allowable under the tax laws of Brazil. The Company is contesting the disallowance and believes that it is not likely that the assessment, interest or penalties will be required to be paid. However, the ultimate outcome will not be determined until the Brazilian tax appeal process is complete, which could take several years. The Company is a party to various other legal claims and actions incidental to its business. The Company believes that none of these claims or actions, either individually or in the aggregate, is material to its business or financial statements as a whole, including its results of operations and financial condition.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

Guarantees

The Company maintains a remarketing agreement with its U.S. finance joint venture, whereby the Company is obligated to repurchase repossessed inventory at market values. The Company has an agreement with its U.S. finance joint venture which limits the Company’s purchase obligations under this arrangement to $6.0 million in the aggregate per calendar year. The Company believes that any losses that might be incurred on the resale of this equipment will not materially impact the Company’s financial position or results of operations, due to the fair value of the underlying equipment.

At March 31, 2015, the Company guaranteed indebtedness owed to third parties of approximately $89.5 million, primarily related to dealer and end-user financing of equipment. Such guarantees generally obligate the Company to repay outstanding finance obligations owed to financial institutions if dealers or end users default on such loans through 2020. The Company believes the credit risk associated with these guarantees is not material to its financial position or results of operations. Losses under such guarantees have historically been insignificant. In addition, the Company generally would expect to be able to recover a significant portion of the amounts paid under such guarantees from the sale of the underlying financed farm equipment, as the fair value of such equipment is expected to be sufficient to offset a substantial portion of the amounts paid.

Other

The Company sells a majority of its wholesale receivables in North America and Europe to its 49% owned U.S., Canadian and European finance joint ventures. The Company also sells certain accounts receivable under factoring arrangements to financial institutions around the world. The Company reviewed the sale of such receivables and determined that these facilities should be accounted for as off-balance sheet transactions.

Legal Claims and Other Matters

On June 27, 2008, the Republic of Iraq filed a civil action in federal court in the Southern District of New York, Case No. 08 CIV 59617, naming as defendants one of the Company’s French subsidiaries and two of its other foreign subsidiaries that participated in the United Nations Oil for Food Program (the “Program”). Ninety-one other entities or companies also were named as defendants in the civil action due to their participation in the Program. The complaint purports to assert claims against each of the defendants seeking damages in an unspecified amount. On February 6, 2013, the federal court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The federal appeals court affirmed that decision. The plaintiff has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a Writ of Certiorari. Although the Company’s subsidiaries intend to vigorously defend against this action, it is not possible at this time to predict the outcome of this action or its impact, if any, on the Company, although if the outcome was adverse, the Company could be required to pay damages.

On October 30, 2012, a third-party complaint was filed in federal court in the Southern District of Texas, Case No. 09 CIV 03884, naming as defendants one of the Company’s French subsidiaries and two of its other foreign subsidiaries. Sixty other entities or companies also were named as third-party defendants. The complaint asserts claims against the defendants, certain of which are also third-party plaintiffs, seeking unspecified damages arising from their participation in the Program. The third-party plaintiffs seek contribution from the third-party defendants. On February 12, 2014, the federal court dismissed the third-party complaint with prejudice. The third-party plaintiffs have not appealed this dismissal, but have until after the resolution of the underlying case to do so. Although the Company’s subsidiaries intend to vigorously defend against this action, it is not possible at this time to predict the outcome of the action or its impact, if any, on the Company, although if the outcome was adverse, the Company could be required to pay damages.

In August 2008, as part of routine audits, the Brazilian taxing authorities disallowed deductions relating to the amortization of certain goodwill recognized in connection with a reorganization of the Company’s Brazilian operations and the related transfer of certain assets to the Company’s Brazilian subsidiaries. The amount of the tax disallowance through March 31, 2015, not including interest and penalties, was approximately 131.5 million Brazilian reais (or approximately $41.1 million). The amount ultimately in dispute will be greater because of interest and penalties. The Company has been advised by its legal and tax advisors that its position with respect to the deductions is allowable under the tax laws of Brazil. The Company is contesting the disallowance and believes that it is not likely that the assessment, interest or penalties will be required to be paid. However, the ultimate outcome will not be determined until the Brazilian tax appeal process is complete, which could take several years.

The Company is a party to various other legal claims and actions incidental to its business. The Company believes that none of these claims or actions, either individually or in the aggregate, is material to its business or financial statements as a whole, including its results of operations and financial condition.