Abe, 52, a nationalist who entered office as Japan's youngest postwar premier, did not announce a date for his departure from office.

Word of Abe's resignation comes after his scandal-scarred government lost control of the upper house of parliament to the resurgent opposition. The LDP still controls the more powerful lower house, which chooses the prime minister.

Abe's resignation marks a rapid fall from power for a prime minister who came into office a year ago with ambitious plans to repair frayed relations with Asian neighbors, revise the 1947 pacifist constitution, and bolster Japan's role in international diplomatic and military affairs.

The prime minister, whose grandfather was premier and whose father was a foreign minister, initially met with success in fence-mending trips last autumn to China and South Korea.

But a string of scandals starting late last year quickly eroded support for Abe. Four Cabinet minister were forced to resign over the past nine months, and one — his first agriculture minister — committed suicide over a money scandal.

Abe also was facing a battle in parliament over extension of the country's refueling mission in support of the U.S.-led operation in Afghanistan.

Abe had said he would quit if he failed to win parliamentary passage of legislation extending the Afghan mission, in which Japanese ships refuel coalition vessels in the Indian Ocean.

"I have pondered how Japan should continue its fight against terrorism," Abe said Wednesday. "I now believe we need change. So Japan must continue its fight against terrorism under a new prime minister."

The plenary session of the lower house was to be delayed, media reports said, but an official of the lower house said she could not confirm that.

Opposition lawmakers said it was about time Abe resigned.

"It is irresponsible for him (to quit) after he gave a policy speech and was to face parliament questioning. He should have quit right after the upper house elections," Mizuho Fukushima, head of the opposition Social Democratic Party, told NHK.

The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration said that in 2004 the IRS received about 3.8 million miscellaneous income statements reporting some $150 billion in earnings that could not be computer-matched to a filed tax return because of missing or erroneous ID numbers.

The inspector general's office, which does oversight of the tax agency, looked at a sampling of these mismatched IDs and calculated that some 6,000 of these individuals had not filed 2004 tax returns despite having income statements indicating they earned more than $100,000. That translates into some $630 million in income, it said.

Much of the income involved compensation for nonemployees such as independent contractors reported on unusable miscellaneous income statements.

The office said that it looked at 620 income and wage statements with mismatched names and ID numbers reporting more than $60,000 in earnings. Using IRS automated data systems, it was able to manually match half of those to taxpayer accounts in IRS records.

It urged that Congress pass legislation, backed by the administration, that would require employers to verify the accuracy of ID numbers for the employees they hire. The office also recommended that the IRS do more to investigate high-dollar miscellaneous income and wage statements with mismatched names and IDs.

The IRS, in response, said it supported the legislation but concluded that the cost of manually tracking down mismatched names and IDs might exceed that of the benefits.

"The IRS's opposition to this recommendation is confounding," said Inspector General J. Russell George, adding that their audit showed that increased examination of statements would more than pay for itself in increased revenue.

The hearing will be before Judge Charles A. Porter, rather than Judge Gary Larson, who had accepted the plea. That could help Mr. Craig’s lawyers, who are arguing, in effect, that Judge Larson erred in accepting the plea.

It is not known whether Mr. Craig will appear, said Judy Smith, a spokeswoman for Billy Martin, a lawyer for Mr. Craig. Mr. Craig was arrested on June 11 by an airport police officer and pleaded guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct.

In exchange, prosecutors dropped a gross misdemeanor charge of interference with privacy. Mr. Craig has since said his plea was a mistake. He filed a request on Monday to withdraw it.

The jury pool was asked to fill out a lengthy questionnaire. One of the questions: "Do you regularly follow professional basketball or consider yourself a fan?"

U.S. District Judge Gerard Lynch also read aloud a list of names of possible witnesses, including Knicks players Stephon Marbury and Malik Rose.

During individual questioning, the judge dismissed one prospective juror, a coffee trader, after the man revealed his anguish over being fired from a job based on a co-worker's claim of inappropriate touching.

A maintenance man and Knicks fan was kept in the pool despite suggesting that game tickets were overpriced and that Thomas's track record as coach was poor. "I can speak freely? The team's not doing too well," he said as Thomas listened nearby.

Eight jurors were to be picked for a trial expected to last three weeks, meaning a verdict could come just before the Knicks open training camp.

Browne Sanders, a former Northwestern basketball star and married mother of three, wants reinstatement to her job as senior vice president of marketing and business operations. She's also seeking hefty damages after spending five years with the storied franchise.

The plaintiff contends she was fired in January 2006 "for telling the truth" while going through internal channels to stop the harassment by Thomas. Madison Square Garden, which owns the team, insisted her dismissal was because she "failed to fulfill professional responsibilities."

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judges ruled 2-1 that William Garner didn't understand his right to silence when he told police he would waive his Miranda rights against self-incrimination. He gave a taped statement to police, saying he set fire to a Cincinnati apartment with six children inside to destroy evidence of his burglary, according to court records.

Garner told police he thought the children would be awakened by the smoke and escape, according to court records. Only one child survived, and Garner, now 34, was convicted of five counts of aggravated murder in the 1992 fire, along with arson and other charges.

Judge Karen Nelson Moore, joined by Judge Boyce L. Martin, wrote that evidence showed that Garner, 19 at the time of the statement, was poorly educated and had low intelligence and other limitations directly related to understanding and comprehending his rights. Expert testimony also showed that Garner didn't understand the word "right" or his right to remain silent, their opinion stated.

"Thus, admission of his statement at trial was unconstitutional," the opinion stated.

Judge John M. Rogers dissented, saying police repeatedly asked and obtained assurance that Garner understood their meaning.

The judges granted Garner's request for habeas corpus, which protects inmates from unlawful imprisonment, and ordered his release in 180 days unless the state sets a new trial.

The state could ask for the case to be heard by all 14 appeals court judges or appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Messages seeking comment were left with Attorney General Marc Dann's office.

Kyle Timkin, an assistant state public defender who argued Garner's case, said he was trying to reach his client, who is being held at the Mansfield Correctional Institution.

"Obviously, we're thrilled," he said. "It just basically affirms long-standing principles."

Shirley Williams originally filed the discrimination case after she and several other employees were laid off in October 2001. Layoffs occurred again in March 2003.

The plaintiffs accused the company of using a computerized performance management system to determine which employees to let go. The plaintiffs contended that the system unfairly singled out employees older than 40.

A Sprint Nextel Corp. spokesman said at the time of the settlement agreement in May that the company settled the case to move on with business.

A Sprint Nextel representative was not immediately available for comment on Monday.