What IFRS accounting rule gives guidance on when revenue must be reversed?

What I am wondering is if I buy something for 100 and sell it for 200, then latter on I buy that same thing back for 200 and sell it for 300 what is my total revenue? Is it total revenue of 500 with total cost of 300 or do I have to reverse the original sale resulting in total revenue of 300 with total cost of 100?

Whatever the answer I would like to read the IFRS that covers this, what section would that be? IAS 18 goes into when to recognize revenue but not when it must be derecognized.

What IFRS accounting rule gives guidance on when revenue must be reversed?

What I am wondering is if I buy something for 100 and sell it for 200, then latter on I buy that same thing back for 200 and sell it for 300 what is my total revenue? Is it total revenue of 500 with total cost of 300 or do I have to reverse the original sale resulting in total revenue of 300 with total cost of 100?

Whatever the answer I would like to read the IFRS that covers this, what section would that be? IAS 18 goes into when to recognize revenue but not when it must be derecognized.

From a practical point of view it is not understood why the original buyer would be able to resell the goods to the seller at the same price? It would depend on the terms and conditions originally contained the sale contract.

If the buyer returns goods to the seller under normal circumstances then it is a sales return and the buyer is free to resell the goods at whatever price he has bargained. In this case, the profit will be 200 (300 - 100).

IAS 18 gives instances where the revenue can not be recognized, such as consignment sales, sales on approval, etc.

In this case the seller is a global manufacturer and the buyer is a local distributor. The manufacturer ran out of the product which had a long lead time so the manufacturer went out on the market and bought it back from a distributor in a part of the world where the demand was low and sold it in a part of the world where the demand was high. The original sale was a sale under IAS 18. But how do I prove the next transaction was a purchase and not a return?

In this case the seller is a global manufacturer and the buyer is a local distributor. The manufacturer ran out of the product which had a long lead time so the manufacturer went out on the market and bought it back from a distributor in a part of the world where the demand was low and sold it in a part of the world where the demand was high. The original sale was a sale under IAS 18. But how do I prove the next transaction was a purchase and not a return?

It seems that since the product was not being sold in that part of the world, the seller - in a way - called the product back. I think this amounts to a return and not a purchase.

Rules generally don't get into detail like that -- they're a concept and then you have to interpret the concept. (Many times based on what has been typically done.) I think intent is important here. I can see the point that since they picked a distributor where demand was low, it's kind of like returning stuff that doesn't sell. In some industries, unsold items can be returned for credit.

But I can also see your point. In the end, gross profit is 200 no matter how you look at it. It's also causing a difference in net sales of 200 from one way to the other.

I do have to wonder if this is material enough to even worry about it so much?

The transaction is $2M, I'm just using simple numbers. I disagree that rules don't get into details. Many of the rules are very detailed, they just seem to pick which topics they go into detail about. Some IFRS defining a purchase or a return would do the trick to, but I can't even find that general concept.

Many rules don't go into details. And I wouldn't be at all surprised that there isn't any specific rules about whether this would be considered a return or purchase. (I can't say that for sure, but I'm certainly not aware of any such thing... not that I'm aware of everything.)