No. Training expenditure does not settle the knowledge, employment or corporate requirements.
Separate the business cost
Clarify who pays and what the course supplies. Government and professional charges are distinct, and no course fee purchases an approval.
Identify which company records and explanatory work are genuinely needed for this claim, then separate that preparation and legal review from government filing fees, optional premium processing, and any family filings. Professional fees for L-1B often run higher than for a comparable L-1A because the specialized-knowledge evidence takes more work to assemble and the offsite-placement issue needs a careful contract review. The knowledge claim has to be built from internal material that nobody has previously organised: design records, commissioning reports, training documents, and an explanation of how long the company needs to develop a replacement. Decide which records would prove that knowledge even if the article disappeared: internal training, uncommon assignments, implementation history, and comparisons with ordinary staff may be more probative. Request estimates for entity records, technical declarations, translations, filing charges, and any optional processing choice, then pause work that depends on an unresolved business decision. The individual work — interviews, evidence gathering, and drafting a distinct knowledge account — does not compress, and the internal time cost of pulling records for several people is often underestimated. Company staff time, translation and professional services may be separate considerations; obtain clear scope rather than assuming one package includes everything.