The Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s reported return to Britain has prompted claims that the couple have picked the perfect moment to move for tax reasons, but a specialist has warned there is “no magic date in August” that allows anyone to come home without facing UK tax.

Harry and Meghan are expected to set up a private home outside London while keeping their properties in California and Portugal. Arriving partway through the tax year could offer some advantages, but Molly Monks, an insolvency specialist at Parker Walsh, said the move was far from a simple tax masterstroke.

“There is no magic date in August that allows someone to return to Britain without facing UK tax,” she said. “The rules consider how many days you spend here, where your homes and family are based and several other connections with the country.”

The UK tax year runs from 6 April to 5 April, and anyone who spends at least 183 days in the country during that period will normally be treated as UK-resident. If the couple arrived in late August and stayed continuously until 5 April, they would pass that threshold. UK residents are generally liable for tax on their worldwide income and gains, which could bring American earnings, investments, royalties and overseas property income into scope.

People who move to Britain partway through a year can sometimes qualify for split-year treatment, which divides the tax year into an overseas part and a UK part so that certain foreign income arising before the move stays outside the UK tax net. HMRC’s guidance on the statutory residence test sets out eight cases in which a year can be split, each with its own conditions, all of which must be met.

“Split-year treatment may be what has prompted some of the claims about perfect timing, but it is not automatic,” Monks said. “The couple’s precise movements, homes, working arrangements and future intentions would all need to be examined.

“Moving in August rather than at the beginning of the tax year could reduce the portion of the year treated as UK-resident, but that is very different from avoiding UK tax altogether.”

Based on the publicly known timeline, the couple are also unlikely to benefit from the four-year foreign income and gains regime, which replaced the remittance basis on 6 April 2025. The scheme can provide relief on eligible overseas income and gains, but HMRC guidance says a claimant must be within their first four years of UK residence following a period of at least ten years as a non-UK resident. Harry and Meghan left Britain around six years ago.

“The new regime sounds generous, but the ten-year absence requirement is crucial,” Monks said. “On the information currently available, it would be unsafe to assume that either of them qualifies.”

Meghan is an American citizen and would generally remain subject to US tax reporting on her worldwide income after moving. Tax treaties and foreign tax credits can help prevent the same income being taxed twice, but they do not remove the need for careful reporting in both countries.

Buying an English home while keeping overseas properties could also trigger a substantial stamp duty land tax bill. On a £10 million purchase, Parker Walsh calculates that the bill would be approximately £1.61 million if additional-property rates applied, rising to around £1.81 million if the surcharge for non-UK residents also applied. The final position would depend on the couple’s circumstances at completion.

Timing could matter again if they decided to sell their Montecito mansion, since disposing of an overseas property after becoming UK-resident could create UK capital gains tax considerations alongside any American liability.

Inheritance tax adds a further layer. Since April 2025, whether overseas assets fall within its scope has been based largely on long-term UK residence, broadly measured by residence in at least ten of the previous 20 tax years. Harry and Meghan may therefore have very different positions because of Harry’s long history of British residence. The switch to a residence-based test was part of the non-dom overhaul that preceded steel magnate Lakshmi Mittal’s decision to move his tax residency to Switzerland.

“Their return may have been perfectly timed for the school year or for family reasons, but calling it perfectly timed for tax is premature,” Monks said. “Maintaining homes and income across several countries can produce overlapping obligations rather than an easy loophole.”

She said anyone in a similar position would need specialist cross-border tax advice before selling an asset, buying a British home or changing where income is received. “With sums this large, getting the timing wrong could be extremely expensive,” she said.