The
Chief
Justice:—This
is
an
appeal
from
a
judgment
of
the
Trial
Division
dismissing
an
action
by
way
of
appeal
from
the
re-assessment
of
the
tax
payable
by
the
appellant
under
Part
I
of
the
Income
Tax
Act
for
the
1973
taxation
year.*
The
principal
question
that
has
to
be
decided
is
whether
an
amount
spent
by
the
appellant
in
replacing
a
substantial
part
of
the
floor
of
the
lower
storey
of
a
two-storey
building
that
was
owned
by
the
appellant
as
a
rental
property
was
a
revenue
expenditure
on
“repairs”
or
an
expenditure
on
account
of
capital.
As
I
understand
them,
the
relevant
facts
may
be
summarized
briefly
as
follows:
(1)
when
the
building,
which
was
built
on
a
site
created
by
fill
consisting
of
garbage
and
earth,
was
originally
constructed,
while
the
peripheral
walls
of
the
building
were
supported
by
piles
sunk
through
the
garbage
fill
to
solid
earth,
the
bottom
floor
was
concrete
slabs
reinforced
by
“wire
mesh”
laid
on
the
fill
and
dependent
on
the
fill
for
support',$
(2)
after
some
years,
the
fill
compacted
causing
the
floor
to
subside
and
break,
with
the
result
that
the
lower
storey
of
part
of
the
building
in
question
became
unusable
as
rental
space
and
“the
waterlines,
storm
drains,
plumbing
weeping
tile
and
electric
wiring”
settled
and
broke
under
the
weight
of
the
floor;
(3)
it
was
recognized
that
(a)
having
regard
to
the
character
of
the
site
on
which
it
was
located,
the
damaged
floor
could
not
be
repaired
as,
or
replaced
by,
a
floor
consisting
of
concrete
slabs
dependent
upon
the
fill
for
support,
and
(b)
for
a
floor
on
that
part
of
the
site
it
was
necessary
to
have
(i)
support
of
the
same
character
as
had
been
provided
for
the
peripheral
walls—ie,
steel
piles
sunk
through
the
fill
to
solid
earth,
and
(ii)
a
floor
consisting
of
a
concrete
slab
reinforced
by
steel
so
that
it
could
be
supported
by
such
piles;*
(4)
the
space
in
question,
as
I
understand
it,
was,
accordingly,
made
usable,
in
the
taxation
year
1973,
by
(a)
breaking
up
and
removing
the
sunken
and
fractured
floor,
(b)
installing
steel
piles
to
be
used
as
support
for
a
substitute
floor,
(c)
creating
a
new
floor
by
constructing
a
concrete
slab
reinforced
with
steel
resting
on
the
steel
piles,
and
(d)
repairing
or
replacing
the
waterlines,
storm
drains,
weeping
tile
and
electric
wiring
that
had
been
damaged
or
destroyed
by
the
subsidence
and
fracturing
of
the
old
floor;
and
(5)
the
total
cost
of
such
operation
was
$95,198.10,
which
was
treated
by
the
appellant
as
an
operating
expense
for
the
1973
taxation
year
and
was
disallowed
as
such
by
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
who
treated
it
as
an
outlay
on
account
of
capital.
In
dismissing
the
action,
the
learned
trial
judge
summed
up
the
essential
facts
as
follows:
The
facilities
in
respect
of
which
work
was
done
and
expense
incurred
had
not
been
used
up
or
worn
out.
The
work
was
not
done
because
of
any
wear
of
the
facilities.
Work
was
not
necessitated
by
any
aging
of
the
materials
previously
in
place.
What
occured
here
was
not
in
the
nature
of
an
accident
as
that
word
is
generally
used.
It
is
admitted,
as
set
out
in
paragraph
7
of
the
statements
of
claim,
that
“The
said
state
of
disrepair
had
resulted
from
the
decomposition
of
garbage
in
the
land-fill
below
the
building,
which
caused
the
lower
floor
of
Electrolite’s
space
to
create
a
dangerous
condition,
and
the
water
lines,
storm
drains,
plumbing
weeping
tile
and
electric
wiring
to
settle
and
break
under
the
weight
of
the
floor.”
Furthermore
the
designing,
engineering
and
construction
of
the
new
floor
was
quite
different
from
that
of
the
previous
floor
which
was
destroyed.
The
new
floor
was
to
meet
the
actual
and
existing
conditions,
namely,
land
partly
filled
with
garbage.
The
previous
one,
with
slabs
on
grade
and
road-mesh
in
the
concrete
was
indicated
for
normal
soil.
Here
the
soil
was
not
normal.
The
new
floor
was
supported
by
steel
piles
driven
through
the
garbage
into
solid
earth
and
the
concrete
flooring
was
reinforced
with
steel.
It
is
futile
to
suggest
that
actually
the
end
result
is
the
same
in
either
case
because
what
was
accomplished
in
each
case
was
a
floor.
By
the
replacement
there
was
a
floor
presumably
capable
of
withstanding
the
inadequacies
of
and
meeting
the
problems
arising
from
the
nature
of
the
land.
Previously
there
was
not.
It
should
be
noted
that
there
is
no
question
of
any
finding
that
there
had
been
some
fault
on
the
part
of
the
designers
of
the
original
building.
The
fact
remains
that
experience
showed
that
the
garbage
fill
site
on
which
the
damaged
floor
was
laid
was
not
sufficiently
solid
to
support
that
floor
for
the
ordinary
life
of
such
a
building
(as
a
site
consisting
of
ordinary
ground
would
have
been)
and
that
for
that
site,
a
basic
floor
so
constructed
that
it
could
be
supported
on
steel
piles
was
required.
I
know
of
no
single
test
to
distinguish
between
(a)
“repairs”,
the
cost
of
which
is
a
revenue
expenditure
in
the
year
during
which
they
are
carried
out,
and
(b)
additions
or
improvements,
the
cost
of
which
is
an
outlay
on
account
of
capital.
Generally
speaking,
replacement
of
worn
or
damaged
parts,
even
though
substantial,
are
repairs
and
are
to
be
contrasted
with
changes
designed
to
create
an
enduring
addition
or
improvement
to
the
structure.*
In
ordinary
cases,
the
difference
is
evident.
Unfortunately,
this
is
not
such
an
ordinary
case.
In
my
view,
on
the
uncontested
facts,
the
learned
Trial
Judge
reached
the
correct
conclusion
at
least
with
reference
to
the
installation
of
the
steel
piles
for
support
of
the
floor.
When
that
part
of
the
building
in
question
was
erected,
there
was
a
hidden
defect
in
the
structure
thereof!
which
adversely
affected
its
intrinsic
value
but,
being
unrecognized,
would
not
have
affected
its
market
value.
When
that
defect
became
apparent,
it
seriously
diminished,
if
it
did
not
destroy,
the
market
value
of
the
part
of
the
building
involved.
The
installation
of
supporting
piles
for
the
basic
floor
was
necessary
to
eliminate
the
defect,
which
had
always
existed
but
had
just
become
apparent.
Elimination
of
the
defect
was
necessary
to
give
the
building
the
character
of
a
long
term
usable
asset
that
it
had
previously
seemed
to
have
but
did
not
actually
have.
In
my
view,
installation
of
the
piles
was
a
permanent
addition
to
the
structure
of
the
building
of
a
foundation
that
had
not
previously
existed
and
was
not
a
repair
to
the
building
as
it
had
existed
prior
to
their
installation.
An
addition
to
the
essential
structure
of
a
building
for
the
period
of
life
contemplated
for
it
does
not,
in
my
view,
become
a
“repair”
merely
because
the
necessity
for
it
was
overlooked
when
the
building
was
built
and
it
is
added
when
the
lack
of
it
becomes
apparent.
In
so
far,
therefore,
as
the
expense
of
$95,198.10
can
reasonably
be
regarded
as
attributable
thereto,
I
am
of
opinion
that
it
was
properly
disallowed
as
not
being
a
current
expense
but
as
being
an
outlay
on
account
of
capital.
In
so
far
as
the
outlay
of
$95,198.10
is
reasonably
attributable
to
the
removal
of
the
damaged
floor
and
its
replacement
by
a
floor
supported
by
the
steel
piles,
I
have
more
difficulty.
As
indicated
by
the
part
of
his
Reasons
that
I
have
quoted,
the
learned
Trial
Judge
seems
to
have
taken
the
view
that
such
expenditure
cannot
be
regarded
as
a
“repair”
expenditure
because
(a)
the
work
was
not
done
because
of
“any
wear
of
the
facilities”
or
“any
aging
of
the
materials
previously
in
place”,
and
(b)
the
designing,
engineering
and
construction
of
the
new
floor
was
quite
different
from
that
of
the
previous
floor
but
was
to
meet
conditions
for
which
the
previous
floor
did
not
qualify.
In
my
view,
these
are
not
reasons
that
necessarily
disqualify
money
spent
on
remedying
damage
to
the
structure
of
a
building
from
being
treated
as
current
expense
on
repairs.
Damage
caused
by
accident
or
vandalism,
just
as
much
as
that
caused
by
deterioration
from
wear
and
tear
or
aging,
can
call
for
“repairs”
in
the
profit
and
loss
sense;
and,
similarly,
“repairs”
do
not
become
disqualified
as
“repairs”
in
that
sense
merely
because
they
are
carried
out
in
the
light
of
technology
unknown
when
the
original
structure
was
built
or
because
they
take
into
account
conditions
(such
as
dampness)
not
taken
into
account
when
the
original
structure
was
built.”
I
am
of
the
view
that,
if
the
replacement
of
the
floor
could
otherwise
be
regarded
as
being
the
remedying
of
damage
to
the
fabric
of
the
building,
it
would
have
been
properly
deducted
as
a
current
expense
on
repairs
notwithstanding
(a)
that
the
damage
arose
from
a
hidden
defect
in
the
original
structure
and
not
from
wear
and
tear,
aging
of
materials
or
some
accidental
or
malicious
happening
in
the
course
of
use,
or
(b)
that
the
damage
was
remedied
in
accordance
with
technology
or
knowledge
as
of
the
time
thereof
that
incidentally
effected
an
improvement
in
the
structure
over
what
it
was
when
originally
built.
The
real
problem,
in
my
view,
with
regard
to
that
part
of
the
$95,198.10
that
can
reasonably
be
attributed
to
the
replacement
of
the
floor,
is
whether
the
replacement
of
the
floor
was
merely
the
remedying
of
damage
to
the
fabric
of
the
building
as
it
had
theretofore
existed
or
whether
it
was
an
integral
component
of
a
work
designed
to
improve
the
building
by
replacing
a
substantial
part
thereof
by
something
essentially
different
in
kind.
My
conclusion
is
that,
prior
to
the
change,
the
part
of
the
building
in
question
had
a
floor
(consisting
of
concrete
slabs
resting
on
garbage
fill)
which
made
the
lower
floor
of
that
part
of
the
building
unusable
and
that
to
remedy
that
situation
and
to
improve
the
building
by
making
the
space
in
question
usable
it
was
necessary
to
replace
that
floor
by
a
floor
consisting
of
a
concrete
slab
reinforced
by
steel
resting
on
steel
piles.
With
some
hesitation,
my
view
is
that
the
improvement
operation
was
the
whole
replacement
work
and
not
merely
the
sinking
of
the
steel
piles.
Again,
I
return
to
the
fact
that,
while
the
difference
between
repairs
and
capital
additions
or
improvements
is
obvious
in
certain
cases,
it
becomes
a
matter
of
difficulty
in
others.
Examples
of
cases
that,
I
suggest,
are
evident,
are
(a)
if
a
building
were
built
with
a
thatched
roof,
while
filling
in
holes
in
the
roof
would
be
repairs,
replacing
the
thatched
roof,
by
reason
of
its
unsuitability
to
modern
living,
with
a
modern
roof,
metal
or
wooden,
would
be
a
capital
improvement
in
the
structure
of
the
building;
(b)
if
a
building
were
built
leaving
one
side
without
a
wall
but
partially
protected
from
the
elements
by
a
metal
awning
that
was
an
essential
part
of
the
structure,
remedying
damage
to
the
awning
would
be
a
“repair”
but
replacing
it
by
a
wall
along
the
open
side
would
be
a
capital
improvement;
(c)
if
a
building
were
built
with
the
floor
of
the
lowest
storey
consisting
of
dry
fill
spread
on
the
ground,
remedying
losses
of
fill
and
smoothing
it
out
would
be
a
“repair”
but
replacing
the
dry
fill
with
a
concrete
floor
would
be
a
capital
improvement.
In
each
of
such
cases
there
has
been,
in
the
“replacing”
operation,
a
substitution
for
some
part
of
the
building
something
that
is
essentially
different
in
kind
from
what
was
there
before
and
constitutes
an
improvement
to
the
building
rather
than
a
mere
repair
thereto.
There
is
no
doubt
that,
in
this
case,
from
the
point
of
view
of
the
persons
making
physical
use
of
the
building,
once
the
floor
was
replaced,
it
was
essentially
the
same
as
the
old
floor
as
it
was
before
it
subsided.
So
regarded,
the
replacement
of
the
floor
could
be
regarded
as
a
repair
of
damage
to
the
building.*
However,
from
the
point
of
view
of
the
owner
or
tenant
of
the
building
as
such,
a
building
the
floor
of
which
was
“floating”
on
garbage
fill
has
been
changed
into
a
substantially
improved
building,
namely,
a
building
the
floor
of
which
is
supported
by
steel
piles.
Moreover,
the
removal
of
the
old
floor
and
construction
of
a
floor
consisting
of
a
single
concrete
slab
reinforced
by
steel
so
as
to
be
suitable
for
being
supported
by
piles
was
an
essential
part
of
that
change.
As
already
indicated,
with
some
hesitation
I
have
come
to
the
conclusion
that
the
problem
must
be
so
regarded
and
that
the
removal
of
the
old
floor,
the
sinking
of
the
piles
and
the
placing
thereon
of
a
concrete
slab
reinforced
by
steel
was
a
single
operation
whereby
an
improvement
was
made
to
the
building
that
was
essentially
different
in
kind
from
a
repair
to
the
building
as
it
originally
was.
In
so
far
as
the
balance
of
the
amount
in
question
is
concerned
(viz,
that
part
of
the
$95,198.10
that
can
reasonably
be
regarded
as
the
cost
of
replacing
or
repairing
of
the
waterlines,
etc.),
the
learned
Trial
Judge
was
of
the
view
that
the
cost
attributable
to
them
must
be
disallowed
because
what
was
done
was
not
due
to
wear,
aging
or
deterioration
resulting
from
use
or
passage
of
time.
I
am
of
the
view
that
that
was
not
a
reason
for
disallowing
them.
Whether
or
not
this
part
of
the
amount
in
dispute
or
some
part
of
it
qualifies
for
deduction
on
current
account,
in
my
view,
depends
on
whether,
apart
from
what
made
the
expenditures
necessary,
they
are
to
be
regarded
as
the
cost
of
repairs
or
as
an
outlay
on
account
of
capital.*
In
my
view,
it
has
been
shown
that
this
portion
of
the
amount
was
disallowed
on
a
wrong
basis
and
that
the
matter
should
be
referred
back
for
reconsideration
thereof
on
a
proper
basis.
I
would
allow
the
appeal,
set
aside
the
judgment
of
the
Trial
Division
and
the
assessment
in
question
and
refer
that
assessment
back
for
reassessment
on
the
basis
that
any
part
of
the
$95,198.10
that
is
not
reasonably
attributable
to
the
replacement
of
the
old
floor
by
a
floor
supported
by
steel
piles
and
that
would
otherwise
be
deductible
as
a
current
expense
should
be
allowed
notwithstanding
that
its
expenditure
became
necessary
as
a
result
of
the
subsidence
or
fracturing
of
the
original
floor.
Urie,
J:—I
have
had
the
advantage
of
reading
the
reasons
for
Judgment
of
the
Chief
Justice.
I
agree
with
his
proposed
disposition
of
the
appeal
and
substantially
with
his
reasons
therefor.
However,
having
regard
to
the
fact
that
this
superficially
simple
matter
turned
out,
for
me,
to
be
a
difficult
one,
I
wish
to
set
out,
as
briefly
as
possible,
the
reasoning
whereby
I
arrived
at
the
same
conclusion
as
the
Chief
Justice.
He
has
set
out
in
sufficient
detail
all
of
the
relevant
facts
so
that
I
need
not
repeat
them.
I
have
only
two
additional
comments
with
respect
to
his
review
of
them.
They
are
(a)
that
not
only
the
peripheral
walls
of
the
building
were
supported
by
piles
but
also,
according
to
the
evidence,
so
were
the
columns
which
presumably
supported
the
upper
floor
and
roof;
and
(b)
as
I
read
the
evidence,
the
ground
level
floor
for
each
section
was
a
solid
concrete
slab
reinforced
by
wire
mesh,
and
not
composed
of
a
number
of
such
Slabs
comprising
the
floor
of
each
section
as
Appellant’s
memorandum
seems
to
imply.
These
additional
facts
are
referred
to
only
for
sake
of
Clarification
and
do
not
have
any
bearing,
in
my
view,
on
the
result
of
the
appeal.
Perhaps
the
starting
point
in
the
determination
of
whether
an
expenditure
is
a
capital
one
or
an
income
one
is
the
expression
used
by
the
Lord
President
in
the
case
of
Valambrosa
Rubber
Company,
Limited
v
Farmer,
5
TC
536
where
he
said:—
Now
I
don’t
say
that
this
consideration
is
absolutely
final
or
determinative,
but
in
a
rough
way
I
think
it
is
not
a
bad
criterion
of
what
is
capital
expenditure—as
against
what
is
income
expenditure—to
say
that
capital
expenditure
is
a
thing
that
is
going
to
be
spent
once
and
for
all,
and
income
expenditure
is
a
thing
that
is
going
to
recur
every
year
As
observed
by
Rowlatt,
J
in
Dunsworth
v
Vickers,
Limited,
[1915]
3
KB
267
no
stress
is
placed
on
the
words
“every
year”.
Rather
“the
real
test
is
between
an
expenditure
which
is
made
to
meet
a
continuous
demand
for
expenditure,
as
opposed
to
an
expenditure
which
is
made
once
for
all,
to
put
it
shortly.”
Thus
it
is
a
question
of
fact
in
each
case
and
often
a
question
of
degree.
It
is
the
latter
question
which
causes
difficulty
in
characterization,
ie,
frequently
from
one
point
of
view
the
expenditure
is
simply
one
made
to
repair
an
existing
asset
not
to
renew,
replace
or
improve
it.
All
repairs
involve
to
some
degree,
renewal
and
replacement
of
parts
of
the
subject
matter
of
the
repair
and,
therefore,
of
necessity
an
improvement
to
the
repaired
structure,
machine
or
whatever
the
subject
matter
is.
That
alone,
it
appears
from
the
jurisprudence,
is
not
sufficient
to
convert
an
expenditure
for
repairs
to
an
income
producing
property
from
an
income
expenditure
to
a
capital
expenditure.
The
crucial
question
it
appears
was
the
outlay
such
as
to
bring
into
existence
a
capital
asset
different
from
that
which
it
replaced?
I
have
concluded
that
in
this
case
it
did.
A
new
floor,
of
a
different
character
and
quality
than
the
old
floor
came
into
existence.
It
performs
the
same
function
as
the
old
floor
and
it
adds
nothing
to
the
earning
capability
of
the
old
one,
but
it
substituted
one
kind
of
floor
for
another.
The
old
floor
was
designed
for
use
on
a
normal
soil
base.
Experience
demonstrated
that
the
base
at
the
site
in
question
was
not
normal
soil
but
was,
in
fact,
subnormal
in
that
it
was
composed
to
a
large
extent
of
decomposing
garbage
as
well
as
soil.
Therefore,
the
floor
slab
designed
for
use
on
normal
soil,
reinforced
though
it
was,
was
unsuitable
for
the
kind
of
underlying
base
that
existed
at
the
site
of
the
building.
That
kind
of
base
called
not
only
for
a
differently
designed
reinforced
floor
slab,
but
also
for
that
slab
to
be
supported
by
piles
driven
through
the
underlying
fill
until
they
reached
a
solid
base.
The
whole,
in
my
view,
is
a
material
alteration—an
improvement
of
a
magnitude
that
removes
it
from
being
classified
as
the
income
expenditure
it
might
have
been
if
the
floor
had
deteriorated
for
some
reason
and
had
had
to
be
replaced
by
a
floor
of
similar
design
to
the
old
one,
to
one
capital
in
nature.
The
fact
that
the
floor
was
only
a
single
component
of
the
lower
level
of
one
section
of
the
entire
building
and,
in
terms
of
function,
was
not
superior
after
the
reconstruction
to
what
it
was
prior
thereto
does
not
affect
this
result.
The
fact
is
that,
while
the
function
vis-a-vis
the
building
as
a
whole
has
not
changed,
the
asset
itself
has
markedly
changed.
The
method
whereby
it
performs
its
function
as
a
floor
has
changed
because
to
enable
it
to
perform
its
function
as
a
floor
and
as
an
integral
part
of
the
building,
it
had
to
have
an
entirely
new
character
not
envisaged
at
the
time
the
original
floor
slab
was
designed
and
laid.
Thus,
while
undoubtedly
the
function
to
be
performed
by
the
subject
matter
of
a
renewal,
repair
or
replacement
is
an
element
to
be
considered
in
characterizing
the
nature
of
the
work,
it
is
only
one
element
and
must
be
examined,
as
I
see
it,
against
the
whole
background
of
the
work.
Not
the
least
important
in
this
background
is
the
determination
of
whether
or
not
a
simple
replacement
of
the
old
subject
matter
would
permit
the
function
to
be
performed
satisfactorily.
Obviously
in
this
case
it
would
not.
Counsel
for
the
appellant
in
his
able
argument
devoted
a
considerable
portion
thereof,
supported
by
some
American
and
Australian
decisions,
to
showing
that
it
is
not
the
cause
of
the
damage
giving
rise
to
the
need
for
repairs
that
is
important,
but
rather
the
purpose
and
effect
of
the
repairs
themselves
that
must
be
examined.
The
purpose
in
this
case,
he
said,
was
merely
to
restore
the
lower
level
of
a
section
of
the
building
to
its
former
operating
condition
without
increasing
the
value
of
the
building
as
a
whole
or
increasing
its
income-producing
capacity.
The
short
answer
to
that
submission
is
that
while
it
was
necessary
to
restore
the
floor
to
earn
income,
an
entirely
new
capital
asset
was
created,
having
a
like
function
to
the
old
one,
but
otherwise
substantially
different.
The
floor
itself
was
designed
to
function
in
a
different
way
than
its
predecessor.
The
purpose
was
not
simply
to
repair
a
floor;
it
was
to
bring
into
being
a
new
capital
asset
to
enable
the
building
to
function
as
an
income-producing
property.
The
Chief
Justice
referred
in
his
reasons
to
his
having
some
hesitancy
in
deciding
whether
or
not
there
might
be
some
distinction
made
between
the
expenditures
incurred
for
the
slab
itself
and
those
incurred
for
the
piles
alone.
The
following
excerpt
from
the
opinion
of
Lord
Carmont
in
William
P
Lawrie
v
Commissioner
of
Inland
Revenue,
[1952]
SLT
413
at
416
perhaps
puts
the
answer
to
the
question
of
the
necessity
for
that
distinction
being
made
as
succinctly
as
possible:—
Any
sum
claimed
by
the
taxpayer
as
having
been
actually
spent
on
repair
can
be
analysed
by
the
Inspector,
or
by
the
Commissioners,
with
a
view
to
determining
whether
or
not
it
is
a
repair
or
renewal,
but
once
it
is
determined
that
the
matter
is
a
renewal
the
whole
of
the
sum
must
be
treated
as
capital
outlay
and
it
is
not
allowable
to
split
up
the
cost
of
the
renewal
so
determined,
with
a
view
to
showing
that
a
certain
part
of
it
should
be
debited
to
income
because
that
amount
would
have
been
expended
if
the
necessary
work
had
been
done
as
a
repair,
because
that
course
would
be
going
back
on
the
decision
that
has
already
been
arrived
at,
viz,
that
the
work
done
should
be
charged
as
a
renewal.
In
the
present
case,
the
appellants,
having
made
up
their
mind
to
deal
with
their
premises
on
the
basis
of
renewal,
are
not
entitled
to
treat
any
part
of
that
outlay
as
income
expenditure.
They
are
not
entitled
to
say
that
if
they
had
treated
the
premises
by
repairing
them
they
would
in
that
event
have
spent
£x
and
to
suggest
that
they
are
entitled
to
separate
that
sum
estimated
for
repairs
from
the
cost
actually
spent
as
renewal
and
to
debit
it
against
income.
Insofar
as
the
removal
of
the
material
derived
from
the
breaking
up
of
the
old
floor
is
concerned,
I
agree
with
what
was
said
by
the
Chief
Justice.
I
find
it
difficult
to
differentiate
between
site
clean-up
at
the
commencement
of
the
construction
ofla
building,
which
it
seems
to
me
is
clearly
part
of
the
ultimate
capital
cost
and
clean-up
of
the
site
in
this
case
before
commencement
of
construction
of
the
new
floor,
which
as
above
found,
is
a
new
capital
asset.
With
respect
to
the
question
of
consequential
or
incidental
costs
arising
from
the
construction,
I
also
agree
with
the
Chief
Justice
and,
as
I
indicated
earlier,
with
his
proposed
disposition
of
the
appeal.