No. The L regulation specifically calls for temporary-service and subsequent foreign-assignment evidence when the beneficiary is an owner or major stockholder.
Describe the actual plan after the U.S. services
Explain the intended assignment abroad with appropriate company evidence. Do not fabricate a role to satisfy the requirement or assume that owning both entities establishes all elements of the transfer. The evidence requirement here attaches to the person rather than to the plan's ambition, so the first task is to establish whether the applicant is in fact an owner or major stockholder of the petitioning organization.
That is a documentary question answered by corporate records. If the answer is yes, the petition must address two things the regulation names: that the United States services are temporary, and that the person will be transferred to an assignment abroad once those services are complete. What goes wrong is treating that as a drafting exercise.
A sentence saying the applicant will return, unsupported by any account of continuing operations abroad or of the work waiting there, is a claim rather than evidence. The stronger file describes the foreign entity's ongoing activity, names the function the applicant would resume, and stays honest about what remains contingent on how the project develops. Where the plan genuinely cannot be fixed yet, say so and explain the basis on which it will be settled.