Chancellor Alistair Darling laid out tough plans in the Budget to name and shame directors who avoid paying tax and to hold company finance directors personally liable if they fail to put in place accounting systems that accurately report tax.

In the plan, anyone deliberately avoiding paying tax or underpaying by more than £25,000 will be fined and could find their names on a Government blacklist that for the first time, will be released to the marauding press pack. The move is part of an attempt to claw in an estimated £1 billion in lost revenue in the next three years.

Mr. Darling said: “…it cannot be fair that those who should pay tax, are allowed to avoid it.”

While this will send a blunt-edged warning to all companies that the HMRC, which had previously strictly maintained confidentiality, means business, it will cause concern for those who believe that tax rules are not always black and white. It may also deter some from taking what will now be seen as a risky job.

Kath Martin, a Director at Montpelier Chartered Accountants, said: “It would be pretty unfair for a company that has a genuine disagreement over a tax rule to have its finance director named and shamed.”

The London Stock Exchange is calling for changes in the forthcoming Budget to raise the limits for financing by venture capital trusts to £25 million in assets and 200 employees to ensure that smaller companies benefit from easier access to equity finance. The call comes as the LSE takes steps to stave-off the move away from its Alternative Investment Market (AIM), which was once the doyenne of small, fast-growing companies.

According to The Times newspaper, the number of companies quoted on AIM has slipped from almost 1,700 at its peak in December 2007 to 1,524 today. While these departures have as much to do with the catatonic state of the credit markets and general shareholder dissatisfaction, as the merits of the AIM market, the LSE wants to act now to help companies come on to AIM and to keep those already listed

Part of the problem is that funding from VCTs has almost disappeared because of changes to the rules. These meant that VCTs cannot invest in a company with more than 50 employees and assets of more than a measly £7 million. This, and a general disinclination to invest in small caps, has meant that VCT funding on AIM has dried-up. The figures demonstrate why the LSE is galloping into action: funds of £196 million were raised in the 2005-6 financial year, compared with just £9 million in 2007-8, according to figures from The Times.

Of course, some of the decline in the number of AIM-listed companies is down to success stories of companies moving from the fledgling exchange on to the Official List, proving AIM’s value as a stepping stone.

As well as addressing the need for VCT backing for AIM-listed companies, the exchange is trying to fuel investor interest in other ways. It hopes its new company research tool, PSQ Analytics, will provide smaller companies with independent research that they can use to encourage investors.

But there remains a bigger question about the drift of companies away from AIM….how many of these would have listed if there had been tougher admission procedures in place?