WHAT IT MEANS
- BIR audit selection criteria under RMO No. 22-2026 now flag businesses by financial ratio rather than by officer judgment.
- Family conglomerates, franchise networks, and businesses with genuine capital spending losses can trigger selection without any wrongdoing on their part.
- Once flagged, a business has no channel to contest the selection itself, only the findings that follow once an audit opens.
- Missing the 180 or 240 day audit deadline does not cancel the assessment. It only exposes the examiner to administrative sanction.
The Bureau of Internal Revenue has published the exact math it now uses to decide who gets audited. Revenue Memorandum Order No. 22-2026, signed August 21, 2026 by Commissioner Charlito Martin Mendoza, sets out the BIR audit selection criteria driving the bureau’s system assisted, risk based audit program, and for the first time lists the specific financial ratios that trigger automatic selection. A business does not need to hide income to land on that list. It only needs to look, on paper, like one that might.
The Bureau Replaces Discretion With a Formula
The order arrives eight months after the BIR suspended field audits in November 2025, following Senate testimony describing revenue officers using Letters of Authority to pressure taxpayers into cash settlements. RMO No. 1-2026 lifted that suspension in January and introduced a single instance audit rule limiting most taxpayers to one active audit authority per taxable year. RMO No. 22-2026 consolidates that reform and everything issued after it into one document, and it draws a firm line between two kinds of audit cases.
Mandatory cases still require a human judgment call. These cover situations such as suspected fraud, tax clearance requests, or refund claims, and they still need approval from a Regional Director or the Assistant Commissioner of the Large Taxpayer Service before an audit authority is issued.
Priority cases work differently. These are generated through what the order calls a system assisted, risk based process, pulling directly from filed tax returns and BIR’s internal data systems. No revenue officer chooses who lands on that list. A set of embedded selection codes does. The BIR audit selection criteria attached to those codes are the actual engine of the reform, and they read less like a fraud test and more like a financial health warning that catches distress and evasion in the same net.
The BIR Audit Selection Criteria Read Like a Warning Label, Not a Fraud Test
The order lists more than a dozen selection codes for priority cases. A sample of the sharpest ones shows how broad the net is cast.
| Code | BIR Audit Selection Criteria | What It Actually Catches |
|---|---|---|
| LOW | Income tax due below 2% of gross sales or revenue | High volume, thin margin retail and distribution businesses as readily as under declared income |
| SNL | Substantial sales reported alongside a net loss | Businesses in genuine downturn or heavy reinvestment, not only businesses hiding profit |
| ASS | Asset growth above 50% from the prior year combined with a reported net loss | Companies expanding through debt or capital spending during a loss making year |
| LST | More than five years in operation without ever being audited | Long running compliant businesses that simply were never selected before, alongside those that avoided scrutiny |
| PSA | Revenue derived mostly or entirely from a parent company, subsidiary, or affiliate | Franchise networks and holding company structures built on routine intercompany billing |
| EPA | Shared expenses and intercompany charges imputed across a conglomerate | Standard cost sharing arrangements common in diversified family owned groups |
| EIT / EIL | Input VAT claimed exceeding 75% of output tax | Capital intensive businesses in a heavy purchasing cycle, not only inflated input claims |
| DNA | Excess input tax carried forward that does not match the prior quarter’s return | Routine timing differences in VAT filing as much as deliberate discrepancy |
None of these codes carry an exception for a legitimate business reason. A retailer with thin margins, a company mid expansion, and a business that quietly under declares sales can all trigger the same BIR audit selection criteria for entirely different reasons, and the system cannot tell them apart before the audit authority is issued.
Ordinary Corporate Structure Now Carries a Selection Code
The PSA and EPA codes deserve particular attention because they do not describe unusual behavior. Family conglomerates that route management fees, rent, or shared services through a parent company have used that structure for decades, largely without scrutiny. Franchise networks built around a master franchisor billing its affiliates for royalties and shared marketing costs work the same way. Both arrangements are now explicit, system flagged triggers under the BIR audit selection criteria, regardless of whether the intercompany pricing was ever designed to shift income anywhere.
That is a meaningful shift in exposure created by the BIR audit selection criteria. A holding company structure that never drew attention under the old, discretion driven system now generates an automatic flag the moment its filed returns show the pattern. The businesses best positioned to manage that exposure are the ones with in house tax counsel who can document the commercial basis for every intercompany charge before an examiner asks. Smaller conglomerates and family groups without that infrastructure absorb the same selection risk with far less capacity to respond to it.
The Anonymity Rule Hides the Taxpayer, Not the Exposure
RMO No. 22-2026 keeps taxpayer identities concealed during selection and assignment, decrypted only once a case has been generated and assigned to a Revenue Officer and Group Supervisor. That mechanism answers a real problem. It was exactly this kind of unregulated discretion, an officer choosing who to flag and on what terms, that fed the extortion complaints behind the 2025 audit suspension in the first place.
What anonymity does not fix is the criteria feeding the selection in the first place. Concealing a taxpayer’s identity from the officer who will eventually handle the case says nothing about whether the underlying financial ratio was a fair basis for selection. The reform closes the door on influence peddling at the assignment stage while leaving the substantive judgment, whether a given ratio actually signals wrongdoing, embedded entirely in code, with no taxpayer facing channel to question it before the audit begins.
The Clock Runs Against the Taxpayer, Not the Bureau
Once a case is assigned, Regional Offices have 180 days to complete an audit and submit a report of investigation. Large Taxpayer Service cases get 240 days. On paper, this looks like a taxpayer protection, a hard stop on how long an audit can drag on.
The order undercuts that read directly. Failure to meet the deadline does not affect the validity of the resulting assessment. The only consequence falls on the Revenue Officer, who may face administrative sanction for the delay. A taxpayer sitting under an open audit for a year past the deadline gains no legal ground from that delay. The clock functions as an internal performance metric for BIR staff, not a limit on how long a business flagged under the BIR audit selection criteria stays exposed.
FAQ
What are the BIR audit selection criteria under RMO No. 22-2026?
They are the financial ratio and data pattern triggers, such as net losses on substantial sales, asset growth above 50% during a loss year, income tax below 2% of gross revenue, and revenue concentrated in a parent or affiliate company, used to generate priority audit cases automatically.
Can a business dispute why it was chosen under the BIR audit selection criteria?
The order provides no channel to contest the selection itself. A taxpayer can only respond once an audit has begun and specific findings are raised.
Does missing the 180 day audit deadline cancel an assessment?
No. The order states plainly that a missed deadline does not affect the validity of the assessment, though the responsible examiner may face administrative sanction.
Are holding companies and franchise networks named as targets?
Not by name, but two selection codes, PSA and EPA, are built around parent affiliate revenue concentration and shared intercompany expenses, patterns common in conglomerate and franchise structures regardless of intent.
When did RMO No. 22-2026 take effect?
The order took effect immediately upon signing on August 21, 2026, and applies to tax return data already on file, including prior filed returns.
The examiner who once decided which businesses got flagged is gone from that stage of the process. In that officer’s place sits a set of financial ratios pulled straight from filed returns, ratios that a holding company rearranging routine intercompany charges and a business quietly under declaring sales can trigger in exactly the same way. RMO No. 22-2026 built a faster, more centralized gate. It did not build a way to tell the two apart before the eLA gets issued.
Track more regulatory shifts that affect your business in Policy & Regulation section of Hemos PH.
