BIR Form 2307 for Chiropractors and Alternative Medicine Practitioners: Which Withholding Rate Applies

A wellness clinic, hospital, or HMO that pays an associate chiropractor, acupuncturist, or similar practitioner generally withholds 2% expanded withholding tax (EWT) under Section 2.57.2(E) of Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 2-98, not the 5%/10% bracket used for doctors — because chiropractors and most other alternative and complementary medicine practitioners are not PRC-licensed and are not individually named in RR No. 2-98 Section 2.57.2(A)’s professional-fee enumeration.

This guide is part of the BIR Form 2307 series. It covers why chiropractors sit outside the named-professional bracket despite being a regulated-sounding health profession, what “PITAHC certification” actually is versus PRC licensure, the contrast between a solo practitioner billing patients directly and a corporate wellness program paying an associate chiropractor, and a worked example for an HMO-accredited clinic’s monthly retainer.

Are chiropractors PRC-licensed professionals in the Philippines? #

No — unlike doctors, dentists, or PRC-regulated allied health professions, chiropractors have no enacted licensing law and no Professional Regulatory Board of their own, despite repeated attempts in Congress to create one. A “Chiropractic Act” establishing a Professional Regulatory Board of Chiropractic Examiners under the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) has been filed in one form or another since at least 2008 — the Chiropractic Regulation Act of 2008, the Chiropractic Act of 2010, and most recently House Bill No. 5153, the Chiropractic Act of 2022. None of these bills has been signed into law as of this writing, so there is currently no PRC board examination, no board licensure, and no PRC-issued professional identification card for chiropractors in the Philippines.

This matters directly for BIR Form 2307 because RR No. 2-98 Section 2.57.2(A), as amended by RR No. 11-2018, puts individual professionals in the 5%/10% withholding bracket by naming specific PRC-licensed and similarly regulated occupations — doctors of medicine, dentists, veterinarians, lawyers, CPAs, engineers, and a defined list of others. A profession with no board license simply isn’t on that list, the same reasoning this series already applied to physical therapists and interior designers and landscape architects, both of which are regulated or licensed under their own enabling statutes without being individually enumerated in Section 2.57.2(A).

In place of PRC licensure, the closest thing chiropractic practice has to a government credential is a national certification issued by the Philippine Institute of Traditional and Alternative Health Care (PITAHC), created under Republic Act (RA) No. 8423, the Traditional and Alternative Medicine Act of 1997. PITAHC’s National Certification Committee for Chiropractic — established under PITAHC Circular No. 01, Series of 2010 — evaluates chiropractic training programs and issues certificates to practitioners who meet its standards; as of the most recent published tally, only a few dozen chiropractors nationwide hold this certification. Acupuncturists fall under a parallel PITAHC certification track for the same reason: acupuncture, like chiropractic, is regulated as a traditional and complementary health practice under RA No. 8423 rather than as a PRC-licensed profession.

Why PITAHC certification isn’t the same as PRC licensure for withholding purposes #

PITAHC certification is a training-and-competency credential issued under a different law for a different purpose than PRC licensure, so it doesn’t move a chiropractor or acupuncturist into RR No. 2-98’s named-professional bracket. RR No. 2-98 Section 2.57.2(A)’s professional-fee enumeration tracks occupations that go through PRC board examination and licensure — the same regulatory pathway that produces a doctor’s, dentist’s, or engineer’s professional license. PITAHC operates under an entirely separate statute aimed at integrating traditional and alternative health care into the national health system, and its national certification confirms a practitioner completed an accredited training program, not that they passed a PRC licensure examination or hold a PRC professional license.

The distinction that matters for withholding is a legal-classification test, not a judgment about whether chiropractic care is a skilled or legitimate profession — it plainly is, and the underlying service can be just as technical as work in a PRC-licensed field. The same pattern already shows up elsewhere in this series: a physical therapist licensed under RA No. 10612 has a real, board-administered PRC license, yet is still outside Section 2.57.2(A)’s named list — so a chiropractor holding only a PITAHC certificate, with no PRC license at all, is even further outside it. Either way, the practical effect for a payor is the same: absent a specific, individually named professional-fee category, the payment defaults to the general business-services bracket.

Who withholds on the payor side — RR No. 2-98’s payor test #

The same corporation-or-business-connected-individual test that governs every other scenario in this series applies here: a business withholds, a private individual paying for their own care generally does not. RR No. 2-98 sets the test for who counts as a withholding agent this way:

“(A) In general, any juridical person, whether or not engaged in trade or business; (B) An individual, with respect to payments made in connection with his trade or business…”

— RR No. 2-98, Section 2.57.3(A)–(B)

A corporate wellness program paying a clinic for on-site chiropractic sessions, an HMO reimbursing an accredited chiropractic clinic under a service contract, or a hospital paying an associate chiropractor a retainer is a withholding agent under clause (A) or (B). A patient paying a chiropractor out of pocket for a personal back-pain adjustment is not — the same trade-or-business line this series already draws for dental clinics and their associate dentists and for physical therapists and rehab clinics.

Solo practitioner billing patients directly vs. a clinic paying an associate #

A solo chiropractor or acupuncturist who bills walk-in patients directly generally has no withholding obligation at all, because the individual patient is not engaged in any trade or business connected to that payment. This mirrors the solo-dentist scenario already covered in this series: with no business intermediary between the patient and the practitioner, RR No. 2-98’s individual-payor test under Section 2.57.3(B) is never satisfied, so no BIR Form 2307 is issued and no tax is withheld at the point of payment. The practitioner still owes income tax (and percentage tax or VAT, depending on registration) on everything received — the absence of withholding doesn’t reduce the underlying liability, it just means there’s no certificate to credit against it.

The picture changes as soon as a juridical entity or a business-connected individual sits between the practitioner and the money:

• A wellness clinic or HMO-accredited practice that engages an associate chiropractor as an independent contractor — paying a per-session or monthly retainer rather than a salary — is a withholding agent under clause (A).
• A corporate wellness program that books a clinic to provide on-site chiropractic or acupuncture sessions for employees is a withholding agent on that facility payment, the same mechanic already covered for corporate-booked spas and massage clinics.
• An HMO paying a chiropractic clinic on behalf of covered members, rather than the member paying directly, is the withholding agent on that disbursement.

What ATC code and rate apply? #

Because chiropractors, acupuncturists, and comparable alternative-medicine practitioners fall outside Section 2.57.2(A)’s named-professional list, a business payor withholds at the flat 2% general-services rate under Section 2.57.2(E), with the ATC code turning on whether the payee is an individual practitioner or a clinic organized as a corporation.

This is the identical flat rate and ATC pairing already established in this series for physical therapists and rehab clinics — the payment stays at 2% whether the clinic is paid as a facility or the individual practitioner is engaged directly, unlike the named-professional bracket, where individual-vs-corporate status can change the rate itself.

Worked example: an HMO-accredited clinic’s monthly retainer #

Suppose WellSpine Chiropractic Clinic, an HMO-accredited wellness clinic organized as a corporation, has an associate chiropractor, Mr. Ramos, providing on-site adjustment sessions three days a week under a corporate return-to-work program run by a manufacturing company. The company pays WellSpine Chiropractic Clinic a fixed monthly retainer of ₱45,000 for the sessions, rather than Mr. Ramos billing the company or its employees directly.

The manufacturing company withholds ₱900 — 2% of the ₱45,000 monthly fee — and remits it through BIR Form 0619-E monthly and BIR Form 1601-EQ quarterly, lists WellSpine Chiropractic Clinic on its Quarterly Alphalist of Payees, and issues a BIR Form 2307 showing ₱45,000 as the income payment, ATC WC160, and ₱900 as tax withheld. WellSpine then pays Mr. Ramos his own share of that retainer as the clinic’s own associate-practitioner arrangement, separately from the company’s withholding on the clinic itself.

A different scenario: if the company instead engaged Mr. Ramos directly as an individual contractor, at the same ₱45,000 monthly fee, without routing the payment through WellSpine, the withholding would still be 2% — only the ATC code changes, to WI160 for an individual payee, withholding the same ₱900. Contrast this with an HMO paying a physician the same ₱45,000 under the hospital professional-fee rule: because doctors are named in Section 2.57.2(A), that payment would instead sit in the 5%/10% bracket at ₱2,250 to ₱4,500 — a materially different withheld amount for a comparably sized fee, purely because of which profession is being paid.

Frequently asked questions #

Are chiropractors licensed by the PRC in the Philippines? #

No. Unlike doctors, dentists, or physical therapists, chiropractors have no PRC-administered licensure exam or Professional Regulatory Board of their own. Several versions of a Chiropractic Act have been filed in Congress since 2008 — the most recent as House Bill No. 5153, the Chiropractic Act of 2022 — but none has been enacted into law as of this writing.

What withholding tax rate applies when a wellness clinic pays an associate chiropractor? #

Because chiropractors are not individually named in RR No. 2-98 Section 2.57.2(A)’s professional-fee enumeration, a wellness clinic, hospital, or HMO paying an associate chiropractor generally withholds the flat 2% general-services rate under Section 2.57.2(E), using ATC WI160 for an individual practitioner or WC160 for a clinic organized as a corporation — not the 5%/10% bracket used for doctors.

Does a solo chiropractor who bills patients directly need to withhold or receive BIR Form 2307? #

Generally no. A patient paying a solo chiropractor out of pocket for their own care is an individual acting outside any trade or business, and RR No. 2-98 constitutes individuals as withholding agents only for business-connected payments. With no business payor in the chain, no withholding applies and no BIR Form 2307 changes hands.

Does PITAHC certification make a chiropractor or acupuncturist a PRC-licensed professional for withholding purposes? #

No. The Philippine Institute of Traditional and Alternative Health Care (PITAHC), created under RA No. 8423, issues a national certification to chiropractic and acupuncture practitioners who meet its training standards, but this certification is a quality and competency credential, not a PRC professional license. It doesn’t place a practitioner in RR No. 2-98’s named-professional withholding bracket.

Are all wellness-industry professions treated the same way under BIR Form 2307? #

No. The rate depends on whether the specific profession is individually named in RR No. 2-98 Section 2.57.2(A). Physicians, dentists, and veterinarians are named and draw the 5%/10% bracket. Chiropractors, acupuncturists, massage therapists, and physical therapists are not named, so payments to them from a business payor generally fall under the flat 2% bracket instead, regardless of how skilled or specialized the underlying service is.

Summary #

Chiropractors, acupuncturists, and similar alternative and complementary medicine practitioners sit outside RR No. 2-98 Section 2.57.2(A)’s 5%/10% named-professional bracket because, unlike doctors and dentists, they have no enacted PRC licensing law — repeated Chiropractic Act bills, most recently House Bill No. 5153 in 2022, remain unpassed — and PITAHC’s national certification under RA No. 8423 is a training credential, not a PRC license. A wellness clinic, HMO, or corporate wellness program paying an associate practitioner or clinic generally withholds instead at the flat 2% general-services rate under Section 2.57.2(E) (ATC WI160/WC160), the same treatment already established in this series for physical therapists and rehab clinics. A solo practitioner billing patients directly out of pocket generally isn’t a withholding scenario at all, the same trade-or-business line covered in BIR Form 2307 for Medical Practitioners and Does a Dental Clinic Withhold Tax on Its Associate Dentists?.