Yes, provided the charge is for delivering the company's maintenance program and the subsidiary continues to employ, direct and pay the planner. The problem arises when the contract reads as supplying a worker by the hour.
Bill for the program, not for the person
Nothing in L-1B prevents the U.S. subsidiary of a Torbay company from invoicing a mine operator for implementing its maintenance methodology, and that revenue is ordinary business income. The immigration concern is the offsite rule, which prohibits placing an L-1B employee at a third-party site if the employee will be principally controlled and supervised by that third party, or if the placement is essentially labour for hire rather than work involving the petitioner's specialized knowledge. The commercial documents decide it. A contract for implementation of the reliability program with milestones, deliverables and acceptance criteria, under which the subsidiary's supervisor assigns and reviews the planner's work, is consistent with L-1B. A time-and-materials contract for a planner at a daily rate reporting to the mine's maintenance superintendent is not. Government fees for the petition are those in Form G-1055; there is no prevailing-wage obligation for L-1B, but the planner must remain employed by the qualifying organization.
Hypothetical example: a Torbay rail-signalling integrator proposes to bill a U.S. transit customer by the specialist's daily hours while the customer's foreperson sets each assignment. That commercial structure can undermine the specialized-knowledge placement even if the invoice is paid to the subsidiary. A first review should compare the statement of work, supervision clause and deliverables. Revise the project so the petitioner retains direction and is responsible for a defined implementation, or reconsider whether L-1B fits the engagement.