NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED)

Periods ended March 31, 2017 and 2016

NOTE 1—BASIS OF PRESENTATION

The accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) for interim financial information and the instructions to Form 10-Q. Accordingly, they do not include all of the information and footnotes required by U.S. GAAP for complete financial statements. In the opinion of management, all adjustments (consisting of normal recurring accruals) considered necessary for a fair presentation have been included.

There have been no significant changes in critical accounting policies since December 31, 2016 . Accounting estimates were revised as necessary during the first three months of 2017 based on new information and changes in facts and circumstances. Certain amounts in the 2016 condensed consolidated financial statements have been reclassified to conform to the 2017 presentation.

The Company primarily uses the last-in, first-out (LIFO) method of valuing inventory. An actual valuation of inventory under the LIFO method can be made only at the end of each year based on the inventory levels and costs at that time. Accordingly, interim LIFO calculations are based on management’s estimates of expected year-end inventory levels and costs are subject to the final year-end LIFO inventory valuation. In addition, interim inventory levels include management’s estimates of annual inventory losses due to shrinkage and other factors. The final year-end valuation of inventory is based on an annual physical inventory count performed during the fourth quarter. For further information on inventory valuations and other matters, refer to the consolidated financial statements and footnotes thereto included in the Company’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016 .

The consolidated results for the three months ended March 31, 2017 are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected for the year ending December 31, 2017 .

NOTE 2—IMPACT OF RECENTLY ISSUED ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS

Effective January 1, 2017, the Company adopted the Accounting Standard Update (ASU) No. 2015-17, "Balance Sheet Classification of Deferred Taxes," which eliminates the requirement for separate presentation of current and non-current portions of deferred tax. Subsequent to adoption, all deferred tax assets and deferred tax liabilities are presented as non-current on the balance sheet. The changes have been applied prospectively as permitted by the ASU and prior years have not been restated. The adoption of this ASU does not have a material effect on the Company's results of operations, financial condition or liquidity.

In March 2017, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued ASU No. 2017-07, "Improving the Presentation of Net Periodic Pension Cost and Net Periodic Postretirement Benefit Costs." The standard requires the service component of pension and other postretirement benefit expense to be presented in the same income statement lines as other employee compensation costs, however, the other components will be presented outside of operating income. In addition, only the service cost component will be eligible for capitalization in assets. The standard is effective starting in 2018, with early adoption permitted. Retrospective application is required for the guidance on the income statement presentation. Prospective application is required for the guidance on the cost capitalization in assets. The Company is in the process of evaluating the impact of the standard.

In January 2017, the FASB issued ASU No. 2017-04, “Simplifying the Test for Goodwill Impairment.” This standard simplifies the accounting for goodwill impairment by elimination the Step 2 requirement to calculate the implied fair value of goodwill. Instead, if a reporting unit's carrying amount exceeds its fair value, an impairment charge will be recorded based on that difference. The impairment charge will be limited to the amount of goodwill allocated to that reporting unit. The standard will be applied prospectively and is effective for impairment tests performed after December 15, 2019, with early adoption permitted. The standard is not expected to have a material effect on the Company's results of operations, financial condition or liquidity.

In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-02, “Leases,” which consists of a comprehensive lease accounting standard. Under the new standard, assets and liabilities arising from most leases will be recognized on the balance sheet. Leases will be classified as either operating or financing, and the lease classification will determine whether expense is recognized on a straight line basis (operating leases) or based on an effective interest method (financing leases). The new standard is effective for interim and annual periods starting in 2019. A modified retrospective transition approach is required with certain practical

expedients available.  The Company has made significant progress with its assessment process, and anticipates this standard will have a material impact on its consolidated balance sheet. While the Company continues to assess all potential impacts of the standard, it currently believes the most significant impact relates to recording lease assets and related liabilities on the balance sheet for the Paint Store Group's retail operations.

In January 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-01, “Recognition and Measurement of Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities,” which amends the guidance for certain aspects of recognition, measurement and disclosure of financial instruments. The standard is effective for interim and annual periods starting in 2018, and early adoption is not permitted. Although the Company continues to assess the potential impacts of the standard, it currently believes that the main impact will be that changes in fair value of marketable securities currently classified as available-for-sale will be recognized in earnings rather than in other comprehensive income. The standard is not expected to have a material effect on the Company's results of operations, financial condition or liquidity.

In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-09, "Revenue from Contracts with Customers," which consists of a comprehensive revenue recognition standard that will supersede nearly all existing revenue recognition guidance under U.S. GAAP. The issuance of ASU No. 2015-14 in August 2015 delays the effective date of the standard to interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2017. Either full retrospective adoption or modified retrospective adoption is permitted. In addition to expanded disclosures regarding revenue, this pronouncement may impact timing of recognition in some arrangements with variable consideration or contracts for the sale of goods or services. The Company has made significant progress with its assessment process. In addition, the Company is currently developing plans for enhancements to its information systems and internal controls in response to the new rule requirements. The Company plans to adopt the standard using the full retrospective method of adoption, which requires the restatement of prior periods presented. The Company expects to have expanded disclosures in the consolidated financial statements and is in process of evaluating the impact on the results of operations, financial condition and liquidity.

⁽¹⁾ Net of taxes of $(389) for unrealized net gains on available-for-sale securities and $18,895 for unrealized net losses on cash flow hedges.

⁽²⁾ Net of taxes of $(142) for pension and other postretirement benefit adjustments and $(3) for realized losses on the sale of available-for-sale securities.

⁽³⁾ Net of taxes of $25 for unrealized net losses on available-for-sale securities and $9,075 for unrealized net losses on cash flow hedges.

⁽⁴⁾ Net of taxes of $(3) for pension and other postretirement benefit adjustments and $(12) for realized losses on the sale of available-for-sale securities.

For further details on the Company’s accrual for product warranty claims, see Note 1 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016 .

NOTE 6—EXIT OR DISPOSAL ACTIVITIES

Liabilities associated with exit or disposal activities are recognized as incurred in accordance with the Exit or Disposal Cost Obligations Topic of the ASC. Qualified exit costs primarily include post-closure rent expenses, incremental post-closure costs and costs of employee terminations. Adjustments may be made to liabilities accrued for qualified exit costs if information becomes available upon which more accurate amounts can be reasonably estimated. Concurrently, property, plant and equipment is tested for impairment in accordance with the Property, Plant and Equipment Topic of the ASC, and if impairment exists, the carrying value of the related assets is reduced to estimated fair value. Additional impairment may be recorded for subsequent revisions in estimated fair value.

In the three months ended March 31, 2017 , three stores in the Paint Stores Group and one branch in the Global Finishes Group were closed due to lower demand or redundancy.

The following table summarizes the activity and remaining liabilities associated with qualified exit costs at March 31, 2017 :

For further details on the Company’s exit or disposal activities, see Note 5 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016 .

The settlement charge recognized in the first quarter of 2016 relates to the wind up of an acquired Canada plan. For further details on the Company’s health care, pension and other benefits, see Note 6 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016 .

NOTE 8—OTHER LONG-TERM LIABILITIES

The Company initially provides for estimated costs of environmental-related activities relating to its past operations and third party sites for which commitments or clean-up plans have been developed and when such costs can be reasonably estimated based on industry standards and professional judgment. These estimated costs are determined based on currently available facts regarding each site. If the best estimate of costs can only be identified as a range and no specific amount within that range can be determined more likely than any other amount within the range, the minimum of the range is provided. At March 31, 2017 , the unaccrued maximum of the estimated range of possible outcomes is $86.6 million higher than the minimum.

The Company continuously assesses its potential liability for investigation and remediation-related activities and adjusts its environmental-related accruals as information becomes available upon which more accurate costs can be reasonably estimated and as additional accounting guidelines are issued. Actual costs incurred may vary from these estimates due to the inherent uncertainties involved including, among others, the number and financial condition of parties involved with respect to any given site, the volumetric contribution which may be attributed to the Company relative to that attributed to other parties, the nature and magnitude of the wastes involved, the various technologies that can be used for remediation and the determination of acceptable remediation with respect to a particular site.

Included in Other long-term liabilities at March 31, 2017 and 2016 were accruals for extended environmental-related activities of $161.6 million and $143.4 million , respectively. Estimated costs of current investigation and remediation activities of $20.0 million and $22.5 million are included in Other accruals at March 31, 2017 and 2016 , respectively.

Three of the Company’s currently and formerly owned manufacturing sites account for the majority of the accrual for environmental-related activities and the unaccrued maximum of the estimated range of possible outcomes at March 31, 2017 . At March 31, 2017 , $151.4 million , or 83.4 percent of the total accrual, related directly to these three sites. In the aggregate unaccrued maximum of $86.6 million at March 31, 2017 , $70.5 million , or 81.4 percent , related to the three manufacturing sites. While environmental investigations and remedial actions are in different stages at these sites, additional investigations, remedial actions and monitoring will likely be required at each site.

Management cannot presently estimate the ultimate potential loss contingencies related to these sites or other less significant sites until such time as a substantial portion of the investigation at the sites is completed and remedial action plans are developed. In the event any future loss contingency significantly exceeds the current amount accrued, the recording of the ultimate liability may result in a material impact on net income for the annual or interim period during which the additional costs are accrued. Management does not believe that any potential liability ultimately attributed to the Company for its environmental-related matters will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, liquidity, or cash flow due to the extended period of time during which environmental investigation and remediation takes place. An estimate of the potential impact on the Company’s operations cannot be made due to the aforementioned uncertainties.

Management expects these contingent environmental-related liabilities to be resolved over an extended period of time. Management is unable to provide a more specific time frame due to the indefinite amount of time to conduct investigation activities at any site, the indefinite amount of time to obtain environmental agency approval, as necessary, with respect to investigation and remediation activities, and the indefinite amount of time necessary to conduct remediation activities.

For further details on the Company’s Other long-term liabilities, see Note 8 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016 .

NOTE 9 – LITIGATION

In the course of its business, the Company is subject to a variety of claims and lawsuits, including, but not limited to, litigation relating to product liability and warranty, personal injury, environmental, intellectual property, commercial, contractual and antitrust claims that are inherently subject to many uncertainties regarding the possibility of a loss to the Company. These uncertainties will ultimately be resolved when one or more future events occur or fail to occur confirming the incurrence of a liability or the reduction of a liability. In accordance with the Contingencies Topic of the ASC, the Company accrues for these contingencies by a charge to income when it is both probable that one or more future events will occur confirming the fact of a loss and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. In the event that the Company’s loss contingency is ultimately determined to be significantly higher than currently accrued, the recording of the additional liability may result in a material impact on the Company’s results of operations, liquidity or financial condition for the annual or interim period during which such additional liability is accrued. In those cases where no accrual is recorded because it is not probable that a liability has

been incurred and the amount of any such loss cannot be reasonably estimated, any potential liability ultimately determined to be attributable to the Company may result in a material impact on the Company’s results of operations, liquidity or financial condition for the annual or interim period during which such liability is accrued. In those cases where no accrual is recorded or exposure to loss exists in excess of the amount accrued, the Contingencies Topic of the ASC requires disclosure of the contingency when there is a reasonable possibility that a loss or additional loss may have been incurred.

Lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation. The Company’s past operations included the manufacture and sale of lead pigments and lead-based paints. The Company, along with other companies, is and has been a defendant in a number of legal proceedings, including individual personal injury actions, purported class actions, and actions brought by various counties, cities, school districts and other government-related entities, arising from the manufacture and sale of lead pigments and lead-based paints. The plaintiffs’ claims have been based upon various legal theories, including negligence, strict liability, breach of warranty, negligent misrepresentations and omissions, fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions, concert of action, civil conspiracy, violations of unfair trade practice and consumer protection laws, enterprise liability, market share liability, public nuisance, unjust enrichment and other theories. The plaintiffs seek various damages and relief, including personal injury and property damage, costs relating to the detection and abatement of lead-based paint from buildings, costs associated with a public education campaign, medical monitoring costs and others. The Company has also been a defendant in legal proceedings arising from the manufacture and sale of non-lead-based paints that seek recovery based upon various legal theories, including the failure to adequately warn of potential exposure to lead during surface preparation when using non-lead-based paint on surfaces previously painted with lead-based paint. The Company believes that the litigation brought to date is without merit or subject to meritorious defenses and is vigorously defending such litigation. The Company has not settled any material lead pigment or lead-based paint litigation. The Company expects that additional lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation may be filed against the Company in the future asserting similar or different legal theories and seeking similar or different types of damages and relief.

Notwithstanding the Company’s views on the merits, litigation is inherently subject to many uncertainties, and the Company ultimately may not prevail. Adverse court rulings or determinations of liability, among other factors, could affect the lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation against the Company and encourage an increase in the number and nature of future claims and proceedings. In addition, from time to time, various legislation and administrative regulations have been enacted, promulgated or proposed to impose obligations on present and former manufacturers of lead pigments and lead-based paints respecting asserted health concerns associated with such products or to overturn the effect of court decisions in which the Company and other manufacturers have been successful.

Due to the uncertainties involved, management is unable to predict the outcome of the lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation, the number or nature of possible future claims and proceedings or the effect that any legislation and/or administrative regulations may have on the litigation or against the Company. In addition, management cannot reasonably determine the scope or amount of the potential costs and liabilities related to such litigation, or resulting from any such legislation and regulations. The Company has not accrued any amounts for such litigation. With respect to such litigation, including the public nuisance litigation, the Company does not believe that it is probable that a loss has occurred, and it is not possible to estimate the range of potential losses as there is no prior history of a loss of this nature and there is no substantive information upon which an estimate could be based. In addition, any potential liability that may result from any changes to legislation and regulations cannot reasonably be estimated. In the event any significant liability is determined to be attributable to the Company relating to such litigation, the recording of the liability may result in a material impact on net income for the annual or interim period during which such liability is accrued. Additionally, due to the uncertainties associated with the amount of any such liability and/or the nature of any other remedy which may be imposed in such litigation, any potential liability determined to be attributable to the Company arising out of such litigation may have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, liquidity or financial condition. An estimate of the potential impact on the Company’s results of operations, liquidity or financial condition cannot be made due to the aforementioned uncertainties.

Public nuisance claim litigation . The Company and other companies are or were defendants in legal proceedings seeking recovery based on public nuisance liability theories, among other theories, brought by the State of Rhode Island, the City of St. Louis, Missouri, various cities and counties in the State of New Jersey, various cities in the State of Ohio and the State of Ohio, the City of Chicago, Illinois, the City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin and the County of Santa Clara, California and other public entities in the State of California. Except for the Santa Clara County, California proceeding, all of these legal proceedings have been concluded in favor of the Company and other defendants at various stages in the proceedings.

The proceedings initiated by the State of Rhode Island included two jury trials. At the conclusion of the second trial, the jury returned a verdict finding that (i) the cumulative presence of lead pigment in paints and coatings on buildings in the State of Rhode Island constitutes a public nuisance, (ii) the Company, along with two other defendants, caused or substantially contributed to the creation of the public nuisance and (iii) the Company and two other defendants should be ordered to abate the public nuisance. The Company and two other defendants appealed and, on July 1, 2008, the Rhode Island Supreme Court,

among other determinations, reversed the judgment of abatement with respect to the Company and two other defendants. The Rhode Island Supreme Court’s decision reversed the public nuisance liability judgment against the Company on the basis that the complaint failed to state a public nuisance claim as a matter of law.

The Santa Clara County, California proceeding was initiated in March 2000 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara. In the original complaint, the plaintiffs asserted various claims including fraud and concealment, strict product liability/failure to warn, strict product liability/design defect, negligence, negligent breach of a special duty, public nuisance, private nuisance, and violations of California’s Business and Professions Code. A number of the asserted claims were resolved in favor of the defendants through pre-trial proceedings. The named plaintiffs in the Fourth Amended Complaint, filed on March 16, 2011, are the Counties of Santa Clara, Alameda, Los Angeles, Monterey, San Mateo, Solano and Ventura, the Cities of Oakland and San Diego and the City and County of San Francisco. The Fourth Amended Complaint asserted a sole claim for public nuisance, alleging that the presence of lead pigments for use in paint and coatings in, on and around residences in the plaintiffs’ jurisdictions constitutes a public nuisance. The plaintiffs sought the abatement of the alleged public nuisance that exists within the plaintiffs’ jurisdictions. A trial commenced on July 15, 2013 and ended on August 22, 2013. The court entered final judgment on January 27, 2014, finding in favor of the plaintiffs and against the Company and two other defendants (ConAgra Grocery Products Company and NL Industries, Inc.). The final judgment held the Company jointly and severally liable with the other two defendants to pay $1.15 billion into a fund to abate the public nuisance. The Company strongly disagrees with the judgment. On February 18, 2014, the Company filed a motion for new trial and a motion to vacate the judgment. The court denied these motions on March 24, 2014. On March 28, 2014, the Company filed a notice of appeal to the Sixth District Court of Appeal for the State of California. The filing of the notice of appeal effects an automatic stay of the judgment without the requirement to post a bond. The appeal is fully briefed, and the parties are waiting for the Sixth District Court of Appeal to set a date for oral argument. The date for oral argument is at the discretion of the Sixth District Court of Appeal. The Company expects the Sixth District Court of Appeal to issue its ruling within 90 days following oral argument. The Company believes that the judgment conflicts with established principles of law and is unsupported by the evidence. The Company has had a favorable history with respect to lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation, particularly other public nuisance litigation, and accordingly, the Company believes that it is not probable that a loss has occurred and it is not possible to estimate the range of potential loss with respect to the case.

Litigation seeking damages from alleged personal injury . The Company and other companies are defendants in a number of legal proceedings seeking monetary damages and other relief from alleged personal injuries. These proceedings include claims by children allegedly injured from ingestion of lead pigment or lead-containing paint and claims for damages allegedly incurred by the children’s parents or guardians. These proceedings generally seek compensatory and punitive damages, and seek other relief including medical monitoring costs. These proceedings include purported claims by individuals, groups of individuals and class actions.

The plaintiff in Thomas v. Lead Industries Association, et al., initiated an action in state court against the Company, other alleged former lead pigment manufacturers and the Lead Industries Association in September 1999. The claims against the Company and the other defendants included strict liability, negligence, negligent misrepresentation and omissions, fraudulent misrepresentation and omissions, concert of action, civil conspiracy and enterprise liability. Implicit within these claims is the theory of “risk contribution” liability (Wisconsin’s theory which is similar to market share liability, except that liability can be joint and several) due to the plaintiff’s inability to identify the manufacturer of any product that allegedly injured the plaintiff. The case ultimately proceeded to trial and, on November 5, 2007, the jury returned a defense verdict, finding that the plaintiff had ingested white lead carbonate, but was not brain damaged or injured as a result. The plaintiff appealed and, on December 16, 2010, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the final judgment in favor of the Company and other defendants.

Wisconsin is the only jurisdiction to date to apply a theory of liability with respect to alleged personal injury (i.e., risk contribution/market share liability) that does not require the plaintiff to identify the manufacturer of the product that allegedly injured the plaintiff in the lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation. Although the risk contribution liability theory was applied during the Thomas trial, the constitutionality of this theory as applied to the lead pigment cases has not been judicially determined by the Wisconsin state courts. However, in an unrelated action filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Gibson v. American Cyanamid, et al., on November 15, 2010, the District Court held that Wisconsin’s risk contribution theory as applied in that case violated the defendants’ right to substantive due process and is unconstitutionally retroactive. The District Court's decision in Gibson v. American Cyanamid, et al., was appealed by the plaintiff to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. On July 24, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the judgment and remanded the case back to the District Court for further proceedings. On January 16, 2015, the defendants filed a petition for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court seeking that Court's review of the Seventh Circuit's decision, and on May 18, 2015, the United States Supreme Court denied the defendants' petition. The case is currently pending in the District Court. Three cases also currently pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Wisconsin (Ravon Owens v. American Cyanamid, et al., Cesar Sifuentes v. American Cyanamid, et al., and Glenn Burton, Jr. v. American Cyanamid, et al.) are being prepared for trial, although no trial dates have been set by the District Court.

In Yasmine Clark v. The Sherwin-Williams Company, et al., the Wisconsin Circuit Court, Milwaukee County, on March 25, 2014, held that the application to a pending case of Section 895.046 of the Wisconsin Statutes (which clarifies the application of the risk contribution theory) is unconstitutional as a violation of the plaintiff’s right to due process of law under the Wisconsin Constitution. On August 21, 2014, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals granted defendants' petition to hear the issue as an interlocutory appeal. On September 29, 2015, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals certified the appeal to the Wisconsin Supreme Court for its determination. Oral argument before the Wisconsin Supreme Court occurred on April 5, 2016. On April 15, 2016, the Wisconsin Supreme Court published its decision, deciding in a 3 to 3 split decision to remand the case back to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals for its consideration. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal on September 20, 2016 and remanded the case back to the Wisconsin Circuit Court for further proceedings. The previously scheduled trial date of October 2017 in the Wisconsin Circuit Court has been vacated, and the Court has not set a new trial date.

Insurance coverage litigation . The Company and its liability insurers, including certain underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, initiated legal proceedings against each other to primarily determine, among other things, whether the costs and liabilities associated with the abatement of lead pigment are covered under certain insurance policies issued to the Company. The Company’s action, filed on March 3, 2006 in the Common Pleas Court, Cuyahoga County, Ohio, is currently stayed and inactive. The liability insurers’ action, which was filed on February 23, 2006 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, has been dismissed. An ultimate loss in the insurance coverage litigation would mean that insurance proceeds could be unavailable under the policies at issue to mitigate any ultimate abatement related costs and liabilities. The Company has not recorded any assets related to these insurance policies or otherwise assumed that proceeds from these insurance policies would be received in estimating any contingent liability accrual. Therefore, an ultimate loss in the insurance coverage litigation without a determination of liability against the Company in the lead pigment or lead-based paint litigation will have no impact on the Company’s results of operation, liquidity or financial condition. As previously stated, however, the Company has not accrued any amounts for the lead pigment or lead-based paint litigation and any significant liability ultimately determined to be attributable to the Company relating to such litigation may result in a material impact on the Company’s results of operations, liquidity or financial condition for the annual or interim period during which such liability is accrued.

Provisions for environmental matters - net represent site-specific increases or decreases to environmental-related accruals as information becomes available upon which more accurate costs can be reasonably estimated and as additional accounting guidelines are issued. Environmental-related accruals are not recorded net of insurance proceeds in accordance with the Offsetting Subtopic of the Balance Sheet Topic of the ASC. See Note 8 for further details on the Company’s environmental-related activities.

The gain on disposition of assets represents net realized gains associated with the sale or disposal of fixed assets previously used in the conduct of the primary business of the Company.

Other (income) expense - net

Included in Other (income) expense - net were the following:

 

Foreign currency transaction related (gains) losses represent net realized (gains) losses on U.S. dollar-denominated liabilities of foreign subsidiaries and net realized and unrealized (gains) losses from foreign currency option and forward contracts. There were no material foreign currency option and forward contracts outstanding at March 31, 2017 and 2016 .

Other income and Other expense included items of revenue, gains, expenses and losses that were unrelated to the primary business purpose of the Company. There were no other items within the other income or other expense caption that were individually significant.

NOTE 11—INCOME TAXES

The effective tax rate was 22.0 percent for the first quarter of 2017 compared to 23.8 percent for the first quarter of 2016 (as restated for the retrospective adoption of ASU No. 2016-09 in 2016). The decrease in the effective tax rate was primarily due to the Company's adoption of ASU No. 2016-09. Excluding the impact of ASU No. 2016-09, the effective tax rate was 32.8 percent and 32.0 percent for the first quarter of 2017 and 2016 , respectively.

At December 31, 2016 , the Company had $32.8 million in unrecognized tax benefits, the recognition of which would have an effect of $27.7 million on the effective tax rate. Included in the balance of unrecognized tax benefits at December 31, 2016 was $2.6 million related to tax positions for which it is reasonably possible that the total amounts could significantly change during the next twelve months. This amount represents a decrease in unrecognized tax benefits comprised primarily of items related to federal audits of partnership investments and expiring statutes in federal, foreign and state jurisdictions.

The Company classifies all income tax related interest and penalties as income tax expense. At December 31, 2016 , the Company had accrued $9.3 million for the potential payment of income tax interest and penalties.

There were no significant changes to any of the balances of unrecognized tax benefits at December 31, 2016 during the first three months of 2017 .

The Company and its subsidiaries file income tax returns in the U.S. federal jurisdiction, and various state and foreign jurisdictions. As of March 31, 2017 , there were no examinations being conducted by the IRS, however, the statute of limitations has not expired for the 2013, 2014 and 2015 tax years.

As of March 31, 2017 , the Company is subject to non-U.S. income tax examinations for the tax years of 2010 through 2016. In addition, the Company is subject to state and local income tax examinations for the tax years 2003 through 2016.

 

⁽²⁾ First quarter 2016 is restated due to the adoption of ASU No. 2016-09 in the second quarter of 2016.

In the reportable segment financial information, Segment profit was total net sales and intersegment transfers less operating costs and expenses. Domestic intersegment transfers were accounted for at the approximate fully absorbed manufactured cost, based on normal capacity volumes, plus customary distribution costs. International intersegment transfers were accounted for at values comparable to normal unaffiliated customer sales. The Administrative segment includes the administrative expenses of the Company’s corporate headquarters site. Also included in the Administrative segment was interest expense, interest and investment income, certain expenses related to closed facilities and environmental-related matters, and other expenses which were not directly associated with the Reportable Segments. The Administrative segment did not include any significant foreign operations. Also included in the Administrative segment was a real estate management unit that is responsible for the ownership, management and leasing of non-retail properties held primarily for use by the Company, including the Company’s headquarters site, and disposal of idle facilities. Sales of this segment represented external leasing revenue of excess headquarters space or leasing of facilities no longer used by the Company in its primary businesses. Gains and losses from the sale of property were not a significant operating factor in determining the performance of the Administrative segment.

Net external sales and segment profit of all consolidated foreign subsidiaries were $419.0 million and $13.8 million , respectively, for the first quarter of 2017 , and $400.7 million and $10.2 million , respectively, for the first quarter of 2016 . Long-lived assets of these subsidiaries totaled $497.1 million and $509.8 million at March 31, 2017 and March 31, 2016 , respectively. Domestic operations accounted for the remaining net external sales, segment profits and long-lived assets. No single geographic area outside the United States was significant relative to consolidated net external sales, income before taxes, or consolidated long-lived assets.

Export sales and sales to any individual customer were each less than 10 percent of consolidated sales to unaffiliated customers during all periods presented.