Invoicing One Client Under Monotributo: How to Claim Labor Fraud
If you invoice the same company every month, for the same amount or close to it, under Argentina's monotributo regime, you have the strongest sign of labor fraud: exclusivity. You can claim recognition of the employment relationship, severance pay based on your real seniority, and reimbursement of the monotributo payments you made all this time, even if you never had a payslip.
Do you invoice the same company every month and don't know if you can claim?
Dr. Guillermo Conti reviews your case at no cost and tells you whether you have labor fraud:
1. Invoicing the same client every month: the strongest sign of fraud
Since the 2024 reform under Law 27,742 and its continuation in Law 27,802 (2026), invoicing a single company exclusively no longer triggers on its own the automatic presumption in Art. 23 LCT: Regulatory Decree 847/2024 (Annex II, Art. 3) clarified that the exclusion of that presumption applies regardless of the number of invoices or clients you have. For the full legal framework behind that change, see monotributo fraud: the legal framework of disguised employment.
But the fact that the automatic presumption no longer applies does not mean exclusivity stopped mattering. In practice, it remains the hardest sign for a company to explain away when it insists you are an independent professional. A genuinely independent contractor spreads the risk across several clients, negotiates the price of each job, and invoices variable amounts depending on what was actually done. If you always invoice the same client, always a fixed or near-fixed amount, month after month, for years, you are not bearing any business risk at all — you are being paid a salary under a different name.
That pattern — a single client, a periodic amount, continuity over time — does not prove the employment relationship by itself, but it is the foundation the rest of the case is built on. Combined with imposed schedules, tools provided by the company, and instructions received by email or chat, it builds a solid evidentiary picture that a labor judge weighs using the judicial presumptions under Art. 163(5) of the Federal Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure, even without the specific legal presumption in Art. 23 LCT.
2. Genuine contractor, single-client contractor, and fully unregistered work: three different situations
- Genuine contractor with several clients: you invoice different companies or people, you choose your own hours and work methods, and your income varies depending on how much and for whom you worked that month. There is no labor fraud here: it is a genuine independent-services arrangement.
- Single-client monotributo contractor (the case this guide covers): you always invoice the same company, for a fixed or near-fixed amount, you work a schedule imposed on you, you use the tools the company gives you, and you take instructions from a supervisor. You have an invoice, but no autonomy: it is employment disguised as monotributo.
- Fully unregistered work (no paperwork at all): you don't invoice anything, there is no document registering the relationship, and payment is made in cash or by transfer with no formal backing at all. This is a different situation — generally harder to prove because there is no documentary trail — and it is addressed with the tools specific to unregistered employment, not the ones in this guide.
Telling these three situations apart matters because it changes the evidentiary strategy. If you are a single-client contractor, you already have a strong documentary starting point: the invoices themselves, with dates and amounts, prove the periodicity and the exclusivity. The work is to add the rest of the signs of subordination to complete the picture.
3. Step by step: the claim for invoicing a single client
Evidence to gather before you act
- Every invoice you issued, sorted by date, to show the periodicity and that the recipient was always the same company (or the same economic group).
- Proof that payment was periodic and of a fixed or near-fixed amount: bank statements showing the monthly deposit, without meaningful variation tied to actual workload.
- Proof of imposed schedules: messages or emails setting a start time, attendance tracking, or a requirement to be available within a specific time window.
- Work tools provided by the company: a computer, a phone, a corporate email account, credentials to internal systems, a uniform, or any work equipment handed to you by the company.
- Emails, chats, or messages with direct instructions from a supervisor about how, when, and by what method to do the work — not about the expected outcome, but about how to carry it out.
- Any sign of integration into the organization: appearing on the org chart, taking part in team meetings, having an email address on the company's domain, or appearing on the company website as part of the staff.
How to give formal notice
Once you have gathered the evidence, the next step is formal notice through a free labor telegram (Law 23,789), demanding proper registration of the relationship with your real start date — usually the date of your first invoice to that company — and your real pay. See how to send a free labor telegram. If the company rejects the claim or does not respond, it is time to consider constructive dismissal based on the breach under Arts. 242 and 246 LCT. Before filing suit, you must go through the mandatory pre-trial proceeding at SECLO (Law 24,635): see how mandatory conciliation works.
What severance you are entitled to
If the courts recognize the employment relationship, your seniority is reconstructed from the real start of the work — usually the date of your first invoice to that company — not from a later date the company would rather claim. Severance under Art. 245 LCT is calculated on that real seniority, based on the reconstructed best monthly, normal, and habitual pay: in practice, the net amount you actually collected month after month through your invoice, because that was your real income regardless of how it was documented on paper. Add to that payment in lieu of notice and integration of the dismissal month (Arts. 232 and 233 LCT), and unpaid 13th-month bonus (SAC) and vacation pay for the period not yet time-barred, within the two years set by Art. 256 LCT.
As for the monotributo payments you already made, Art. 7° quáter of Law 24,013 — added by Law 27,742 — provides that if a final judgment recognizes that the relationship was in fact one of employment, the contributions debt determined by the collecting agency is calculated after deducting the amounts you already paid under the monotributo regime, so you are not charged twice for the same period.
The 25% fine under Law 24,013 and the doubled severance under Law 25,323 no longer exist
Outdated information promising a "25% fine on every invoice issued" still circulates. Arts. 8 through 17 of Law 24,013 and the entirety of Law 25,323 were repealed by Law 27,742 (Official Gazette 7/8/2024). A current claim for single-client invoicing fraud cannot include those fines, and promising them creates the wrong expectations about the final amount.
4. Common mistakes when claiming for single-client invoicing
- Assuming exclusivity alone is enough to win the case. It is the strongest sign, but since the 2024 reform it does not trigger the automatic presumption: you have to add imposed schedules, provided tools, and instructions received.
- Stopping invoicing before gathering evidence. Cutting the relationship too quickly, before you have collected emails, messages, and schedule records, makes it harder to later reconstruct the real relationship.
- Sending formal notice before sorting the invoices by date. A claim with disorganized documentary evidence gives the company time to build a defense on the fly.
- Claiming the repealed fines under Law 24,013 or Law 25,323. It weakens the claim in front of the other side and creates recovery expectations that will not be met.
- Not distinguishing your situation from fully unregistered work. If you have invoices, your evidentiary strategy starts from a different — and in some respects more favorable — position than someone with no paperwork at all.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is invoicing the same company every month enough on its own to win the claim?
Not by itself. Since the 2024 reform, exclusivity does not trigger the automatic presumption under Art. 23 LCT, but it remains the hardest sign for the company to explain away. You need to add imposed schedules, provided tools, and instructions received to build a solid case.
If I invoiced a second client at some point, do I lose the case?
Not necessarily. What matters is not absolute exclusivity but the overall pattern: if for the vast majority of the time you invoiced a single company with imposed schedules and under its instructions, one isolated invoice to another client does not sink the case, though it is worth explaining clearly when you build the evidence.
Besides the invoices, what other evidence adds the most to the file?
Emails or messages with required schedules, work tools provided by the company (computer, phone, corporate email account), direct instructions from a supervisor about how to do the work, and anything showing your integration into the organization, such as appearing on the org chart or taking part in team meetings.
How is severance calculated if my "salary" was really the net amount on my invoice?
Your real pay is reconstructed: in practice, the net amount you actually collected month after month, because that was your genuine income regardless of how it was documented. That base is run through the Art. 245 LCT formula: one month of that pay for each year of seniority or fraction over three months.
From what date is my seniority counted if I started out invoicing?
From the real start of the work, which generally matches the date of your first invoice to that company. It is not counted from a later date the company would rather claim in order to reduce the severance amount.
Can I start the claim without stopping invoicing the company?
Yes. Cutting the relationship before you claim is not a requirement. It is best to first gather all the evidence of schedules, tools, and instructions while the relationship is still active, and only afterward decide whether to give notice, keep invoicing, or treat yourself as constructively dismissed.
What if I was made to invoice through a cooperative or a third party, not directly to the company?
Art. 14 LCT voids any contract involving simulation or fraud against labor law, whether by disguising it as a non-labor arrangement, interposing a third party, or any other means. If in practice you worked under the instructions and for the benefit of the company actually using your services, the formal interposition of a cooperative or an intermediary does not change the underlying analysis.
Do I get back the monotributo payments I made all this time?
Yes. Art. 7° quáter of Law 24,013 provides that, if a final judgment recognizes the employment relationship, the contributions debt determined by the collecting agency is calculated by deducting what you already paid as a monotributista, so you are not charged twice for the same period.
What if the company says I chose to invoice instead of being formally hired?
That argument does not change the legal analysis if legal, technical, and economic subordination existed in fact. The primacy of reality principle, grounded in Art. 14 LCT, looks at what actually happened in the relationship, not at what the parties said or signed about how invoicing was arranged.
How is this service different from the general guide on monotributo fraud?
That guide covers the general legal framework: the Art. 23 LCT presumption, its recent changes, and the signs of dependency in the abstract. This page covers the concrete claim for the most common and clearest scenario: invoicing exclusively to a single client, with all the evidence and steps specific to that situation.
Related Resources
- Monotributo Fraud: The Legal Framework The Art. 23 LCT presumption, its recent changes, and the signs of dependency in general.
- Free Labor Telegrams (Law 23,789) How to send a formal notice at no cost through Correo Argentino.
- Mandatory SECLO Conciliation Hearings and homologated settlements procedure.