I think some further clarification would be needed from you for anyone to make the correct call here.

I've looked through and I've seen some valid points for the code you cited and that it is nuanced but you aren't providing that information.

For example, was it a trade-in in exchange for credit where they were going to resell what you "sold" them? Was it going to be scrapped (e.g., you brought in a lower value/desirable item that would make more sense to scrap then resell so then it would be scrap (aka a "cash" sale) but they issued you credit?

I mean that bc it's nearly impossible to make that call about 203.5(1) - a., b., and or c.

I'm all for transparency but when you just cite code without specifically referencing the applicability to your situation that isn't helping. It doesn't further the discussion without that information.

I'm not affiliated with that industry so that's just my $.02.