This article compares the general anti-avoidance rule of income tax law with the civil law doctrine of abuse of law (Rechtsmissbrauch, abus de droit) in eight jurisdictions. After giving an overview of tax avoidance as a problem for all countries, the article addresses the statutory and judge-made anti-avoidance rules in Germany (the general anti-abuse rule and abuse of law in tax cases), Croatia (some specific anti-avoidance provisions but no general anti-avoidance rule), New Zealand (a statutory general anti-avoidance rule), Australia (a general anti-avoidance rule with concrete elements), France (abus de droit in French tax law, both statutory and case law), the EU Member States (allowable scope of anti-avoidance rules in light of the EC Treaty and decisions of the European Court of Justice), the United States (no general anti-avoidance rule but the judicial sham doctrine), and the United Kingdom (no general anti-avoidance rule but the judicial sham doctrine). The article deals with the core concept of avoidance and focuses on transactions that most would recognize as avoidance and on how these jurisdictions either frustrate avoidance or allow it.