The taxpayer, which subleased premises on which were “Shells” consisting essentially of foundations, walls and roofs, installed wall and floor coverings and electrical, ventilation and plumbing work and performed other work to make the premises suitable for use in its manufacturing and processing (“M&P”) work, and took the position that the portion of the costs should be included in the capital cost of equipment that was used directly or indirectly primarily for the M&P of goods for sale (the "M&P Properties"), namely, the cost of installing the M&P Properties (the "M&P Installation Costs") and as the cost of goods specifically required to perform such installation and to commission the M&P Property (the "M&P Commissioning Property ) should be included in Class 29 rather than Class 13. In addressing whether such costs were costs of the M&P Property or costs of the M&P Commissioning Property, the Directorate stated:
[T]he costs of installing equipment and bringing it into service generally include the costs of connecting it, for example to the building's electrical system, to the extent that these costs are identifiable and serve only that equipment. …
If you determine that the portion of the M&P Installation Costs and the costs of the M&P Commissioning Property represents installation costs and expenses incurred to bring an M&P Property into service, the portion of those costs will therefore be included in the same Class as the M&P Property.
… [I]f you determine instead that the portion of the M&P Installation Costs and the costs of the M&P Commissioning Property does not represent installation costs and expenses incurred to bring an M&P Property into service, the portion of those costs will not be included in the same Class as the M&P Property. Instead, the M&P Commissioning Property will be included in the Class appropriate to the M&P Commissioning Property itself, for example electrical wiring and plumbing pipes … .