There is a world of difference in the tax treatments, it's one of the reasons many can hang in when a business is not performing too well on the face of it.
A writeup in the paper today illustrated how equity funders load up their operations in higher tax countries with debt, so there is little tax to pay. The profits are thus relocated to a low-tax operation in another country. That is a particularly nasty example, but business owners have some control over what tax they pay in a given year, considering they can hire and fire employees, can choose to buy more stock, or buy more equipment. Employees just have the tax taken out each week, and have no real opportunity to reclaim their costs of getting to work for example. These days fuel and parking can be quite significant.
I think you're being obtuse about the difference between repairs and increasing a building asset's value. A paint job with a small amount of building upgrade involved would sneak under the radar. The landlord agreements I've seen were very scant about the chances of the outside of the building being repainted regularly, all the landlord needed to do was ensure it didn't leak, that services were connected properly. In my case I've had to attempt roof repairs on adjacent leased premises at my own cost, and the facade is falling apart.
If the building owner doesn't think keeping the outside of their structure tidy is important, why should the lessee spend too much of their cashflow on the inside of the building? Their customers will be looking at the whole structure.