Opinion ID: 522954
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Revocability of the Waiver

Text: 22 The November 4 notice of the Secretary's waiver contained the following language: Nor are we    waiving the right to reinstitute prospectively on written notice to the Company the accrual of interest on all or any of the amounts owing to the Secretary by the Company. The taxpayers contend that, even if the Secretary had the authority to waive the 1978 interest obligations, this language made it revocable and thus ineffective. We agree. 23 Irrevocability is the essence of a waiver provision. Where a party intentionally relinquishes a known right by waiver, he cannot, without consent of his adversary, reclaim it. A waiver, once established, is irrevocable even in the absence of any consideration therefor. Engstrom v. Farmers & Bankers Life Ins. Co., 230 Minn. 308, 41 N.W.2d 422, 424 (1950) (citations omitted). 24 Intent is an essential element of a waiver and can be gleaned from the declarations of the parties or inferred from the facts. Id.; Anderson v. Twin City Rapid Transit Co., 250 Minn. 167, 84 N.W.2d 593, 603 (1957). The language of the Secretary's waiver notice explicitly communicated her intent not to be irrevocably bound by the attempted waiver. In addition, her subsequent actions confirmed that the waiver was intended to be revocable, when in 1980 she in fact revoked the waiver and reinstated the interest due. For a waiver to be effective, the right allegedly waived must be gone beyond recall. Twin City, 84 N.W.2d at 603. We conclude, therefore, that the Secretary's waiver was ineffective. 25 The Commissioner argues that regardless of whether the waiver was legally effective, the uncertainty as to its validity during the taxable year rendered the partnership's liability contingent. We disagree. The waiver was either valid or invalid from the outset. Because we have already concluded that the Secretary's waiver was not effective, further discussion of the contingency issue is unnecessary.