No. That is the qualifying investment threshold for a targeted employment area under the current framework, and it must be verified as current. Government fees, professional costs and working capital are additional.
The threshold is a floor, not a budget
Hypothetical example: The reduced amount applies to an investment in a targeted employment area or an infrastructure project, and the standard amount is one million fifty thousand dollars, both set by the 2022 legislation and subject to adjustment, so the current figures must be confirmed before money moves. Beyond the investment itself, the filing carries government fees on the published schedule, and a direct investment requires a professionally prepared business plan and economic support. The enterprise also needs enough working capital to sustain a payroll of at least ten people until it is self-supporting, which is a larger practical number than the threshold and is where undercapitalized direct projects most often fail. The realistic budget is the threshold plus the cost of running the business until it stands on its own.
Separate the qualifying investment from administrative charges, professional costs and reserves that are not part of the required capital. Hypothetical example: A recycling-facility investor has enough funds for the published threshold but also faces substantial site-remediation costs. The investor must decide if the actual business plan still supports the required jobs after those costs are paid. Treating every dollar wired to a project as qualifying capital can obscure that practical question.
Use a written funds flow that identifies what reaches the enterprise and what pays fees or expenses. The distinction should remain clear in bank records.