No. Historical training expenditure may help explain the knowledge-development process, but it is distinct from immigration filing fees and professional preparation costs. There is no L-1B investment contribution that replaces eligibility.
Budget evidence preparation separately
Allow for retrieving learning records, translating relevant documents and obtaining a clear technical explanation. Confirm current government charges for the selected filing route, any applicable supplemental fees and optional premium processing. Training cost can be relevant evidence, but an expensive course does not buy qualification or establish that the knowledge is specialised.
Most of the preparation cost in a knowledge case is time spent extracting information from people who are busy doing the work. Budget for that explicitly: a technical manager’s hours, an interpreter or technical writer if the source material is not in accessible English, and the internal effort of retrieving records from systems that may have changed since the training occurred. Where an employee has moved between group companies, obtaining older personnel and payroll records from a different jurisdiction can add both cost and delay.
Confirm the government charges against the actual petitioner and filing route, including any supplemental fee that depends on the employer’s characteristics. A generous training budget in the company’s history is evidence about investment in the employee; it is not a payment toward the petition and does not establish that the standard is met.