Generally yes. The investor must be engaged in management or policy formulation, and the rights of a limited partner under a properly drafted partnership agreement are treated as sufficient; a purely passive silent investment is not.
Limited-partner rights are enough; a silent side letter is not
Hypothetical example: The regulation requires the investor to be engaged in the new commercial enterprise, either through day-to-day management or through policy formulation, and it states that a limited partner with the rights and duties of a limited partner under the applicable uniform act is considered sufficiently engaged. A Portugal Cove-St. Philip's retiree who has no wish to run a U.S. business can therefore invest through a regional-center partnership and satisfy the rule, provided the partnership agreement actually confers voting and information rights on limited partners. What undermines the requirement is a structure in which the investor has waived those rights, a side letter promising a guaranteed return that removes the capital from risk, or a redemption arrangement that makes the investment a loan in substance. The other requirements do not change with retirement: the capital must be the investor's own, lawfully sourced, fully committed and at risk, and the enterprise must create ten qualifying jobs attributable to the investment.
Hypothetical example: a Canadian novelist plans to invest proceeds from a publishing-rights sale in a regional-centre project. The first review should trace the contract, royalty statements, tax filings, bank deposits, and transfer to the enterprise in chronological order. At the same time, examine the offering documents for the job-creation methodology, the investor's policy role, and the required capital amount as applicable at filing. A large bank balance does not settle either issue by itself: the file must establish lawful source and path, and the project materials must address the required employment creation.