It's not how many witnesses you have but how credible you are.
" I did not find the Appellant to be a credible witness. ... on several occasions, the objective evidence before the Court contradicted his oral testimony."
The issue that faced Mr. Karam "was whether the substantial gain realized on the sale of the [land] is on account of income or capital." (Para. 1) "What I must determine is whether the Limited Partnership and the Appellant purchased the [land] with the intention to resell the lands." (Para. 55) That intention is key to deciding whether land is held on income or capital account.
If the land is capital, the profit is taxed as capital gain, i.e., we include only 50% of the gain in income. If the land is income (inventory) property, the gain is business income, all of which we include in income subject to tax.
The partnership agreement said that the partnership was "established for the sole purpose of acquiring interests in the two parcels of land ... with a view to turning them to account at a profit." (Para. 66.) The rest of the evidence confirmed that intention.
You should confront your facts candidly. Witnesses can't overcome documents.
See Karam v. The Queen, (2013 TCC D'Arcy)