Studies of planning ability typically involve some version of the Tower of Hanoi or Tower of London (TOL). When these tests are administered to patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), the findings pertaining to planning "performance" have been conflicting. Possible reasons for failures to find deficits in planning performance among MS patients are: (a) the patients typically have relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) of mild severity and short duration and thus little cognitive impairment relative to those with more advanced disease; (b) the problems composing the tests are too simple and differences between patients and controls are therefore obscured by ceiling effects; and (c) the scoring system typically used permits participants to earn points for successful solutions on later trials after failing the initial attempt on each problem, thereby further diluting the difference between patients and controls. The present study compared the performance of patients with both relapsing-remitting and secondary progressive disease with that of healthy controls on a more challenging version of the TOL. Patients exhibited lengthier planning times on the test, greater disparity in their average planning times from those of controls as the difficulty level increased, and greater individual variability in their planning times across the full set of problems. However, no differences in planning performance were found between patients and controls or between RRMS and secondary progressive MS patients. Performance differences in other studies may be attributable in part to the imposition of time limits for solving each problem and the disproportionately adverse effect such time limits have on patients' performance.