"I'm very disappointed in the article. It's not true," the likely Republican presidential nominee said as his wife, Cindy, stood beside him during a news conference called to address the matter.

"I've served this nation honorably for more than half a century," said McCain, a four-term Arizona senator and former Navy pilot. "At no time have I ever done anything that would betray the public trust."

"I intend to move on," he added.

McCain described the woman in question, lobbyist Vicki Iseman, as a friend.

The newspaper quoted anonymous aides as saying they had urged McCain and Iseman to stay away from each other prior to his failed presidential campaign in 2000. In its own follow-up story, The Washington Post quoted longtime aide John Weaver, who split with McCain last year, as saying he met with lobbyist Iseman and urged her to steer clear of McCain.

Weaver told the Times he arranged the meeting before the 2000 campaign after "a discussion among the campaign leadership" about Iseman.

But McCain said he was unaware of any such conversation, and denied that his aides ever tried to talk to him about his interactions with Iseman.

"I never discussed it with John Weaver. As far as I know, there was no necessity for it," McCain said. "I don't know anything about it," he added. "John Weaver is a friend of mine. He remains a friend of mine. But I certainly didn't know anything of that nature."

His wife also said she was disappointed with the newspaper.

"More importantly, my children and I not only trust my husband, but know that he would never do anything to not only disappoint our family, but disappoint the people of America. He's a man of great character," Cindy McCain said.

The couple smiled throughout the questioning at a Toledo hotel.

The published reports said McCain and Iseman each denied having a romantic relationship. Neither story asserted that there was a romantic relationship and offered no evidence that there was, reporting only that aides worried about the appearance of McCain having close ties to a lobbyist with business before the Senate Commerce Committee on which McCain served.

Overall, the number of individual income-tax audits reached a 10-year high in 2007 – and the IRS plans to increase that number this year.

The push comes as the agency faces heavy pressure from Congress to raise additional revenue and shrink the nation's $290 billion "tax gap," the difference between what's collected and what should be collected.

IRS research indicates that much of the tax noncompliance is committed by self-employed workers, such as consultants and small-business owners, whose taxes aren't withheld from their pay and whose income isn't reported separately.

This year, "we will continue to focus on audits of high-income individuals," said Linda Stiff, the IRS's acting commissioner.

In addition, agents have increased audits of taxpayers involved in partnerships and businesses organized as "S corporations."

For the vast majority of taxpayers, the odds of getting audited remain low. Only about 1 percent of all individual returns filed in recent years have been audited. But the chances now are higher than just a few years ago.

The IRS relies on numerous techniques to choose which returns to audit. Many are selected using a secret computerized-scoring system that the IRS recently updated, which is based on a continuing research project involving in-depth audits of thousands of returns. Computer programs assign each tax return a score that evaluates the potential for inaccuracies, based on the IRS's experience with similar returns.

Others are picked because of "mismatches" – which means that something a taxpayer reported doesn't match what was reported separately to the IRS by employers or financial institutions.

Some returns get audited because they were done by a tax preparer the IRS suspects of wrongdoing.

Then there are those that get selected because of a tip from confidential informants, such as a former business partner or ex-spouse.

The Supreme Court yesterday protected the makers of medical devices that have passed the most rigorous federal review standards from lawsuits by consumers who allege that the devices caused them harm.

The court ruled 8 to 1 against the estate of a New York man who was seriously injured when a balloon catheter manufactured by Medtronic burst during an angioplasty in 1996. Charles Riegel, who died three years ago, and his wife sued under New York law, alleging that the device's design was faulty and its labeling deficient.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said federal law preempts the imposition of liability under state laws for devices that have undergone the Food and Drug Administration's pre-market approval process, the most rigorous of the FDA's testing procedures.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was the lone dissenter. Congress did not intend the preemption clause, Ginsburg wrote, "to effect a radical curtailment of state common-law suits seeking compensation for injuries caused by defectively designed or labeled medical devices."

Courts are filled with lawsuits over preemption, which New York University law professor Catherine M. Sharkey called "the fiercest battle in products liability litigation today."

The Supreme Court this year took several cases that invoke federal preemption. Cases still to be heard include lawsuits in state courts that seek to punish cigarette makers and drug manufacturers.

The court ruled in 1996 that devices approved by the FDA under a less-rigorous process were not protected from state lawsuits. The agency agreed with that.

In 2004 the government reversed its position, and when the case decided yesterday was argued in December, the government said such suits undermine the FDA's authority.

The report by Legislative Analyst Elizabeth Hill shifted the state's fledgling budget debate to whether new taxes should be part of the solution — an approach the Republican governor has opposed.

It also sparked the kind of partisan sniping that Democrats and Republicans had so far avoided in hopes of preventing a repeat of the protracted budget debate that paralyzed the capital last summer.

Schwarzenegger last month pegged the shortfall at $14.5 billion through June 2009, but Hill said it has grown to $16 billion. She said Schwarzenegger's proposal for the 2008-09 budget year was flawed because it fails to set funding priorities or correct the state's chronic imbalance between spending and revenue.

"A decline in revenue means we have a larger shortfall than the governor projected," she said. "Our recommendations will affect all Californians in some way. However, we think that will benefit all Californians in the long run."

Overturning a lower court decision that AIG could withhold the documents as privileged, a unanimous five-judge panel of the Appellate Division of New York State Supreme Court ruled that the two former AIG executives are entitled to the legal memoranda, which include some related to AIG’s allegedly fraudulent 2000 loss portfolio reinsurance deal with General Re Corp.

Yesterday’s appeals ruling stems from then-New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer’s 2005 lawsuit charging Messrs. Greenberg and Smith with fraud related to the Gen Re deal and other allegedly sham transactions designed to manipulate AIG’s financial statements. AIG itself was originally a defendant, but settled with regulators in 2006, paying $1.6 billion.

Messrs. Greenberg and Smith have argued in part that they relied on the advice of legal counsel in the transactions cited in the attorney general’s lawsuit, and have sought copies of all legal memoranda related to the transactions prepared at the time they were AIG officers.

AIG refused to turn over the documents, and a New York judge ruled that they were protected by AIG’s attorney-client privilege.

The Appellate Division panel reversed that ruling, though, finding that the two former executives have a qualified right to inspect the memoranda.

Luxembourg parliament adopted a law late on Tuesday to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide, adding the Grand Duchy to a small group of countries that allow the terminally ill to end their lives.

The law, expected to come into force towards the summer, was passed by 30 votes to 26. Luxembourg's media said it was a symbolic defeat for Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker whose Christian Social Party opposed it.

"The Christian Social Party and the Catholic church were against the euthanasia law, calling it murder but we said no, it's just another way to go," said Jean Huss, a member of parliament of the Green Party and co-sponsor of the bill.

Huss said he expected that the legislative process needed for the law to come into force would take a few more months and would most likely be implemented towards the summer.

The Netherlands became the first country to permit assisted deaths for the terminally ill in April 2002.

Opponents there had drawn parallels with Nazi Germany, where authorities killed thousands of disabled children and mentally ill adults.

Huss said fears that old people would be pressured to commit suicide were groundless, given the checks and balances built into the law.

Euthanasia would be allowed for the terminally ill and those with incurable diseases or conditions, only when they asked to die repeatedly and with the consent of two doctors and a panel of experts.