Extrinsic evidence should not be consulted to clarify or construe a tax statute couched in clear and unambiguous language; however, where doubtful or ambiguous language appears in a statute allowing for an exemption from taxation, the statute should be strictly construed against the taxpayer. E.g., State ex rel. Wedgworth Farms, Inc. v. Thompson, 101 So.2d 381 (Fla. 1958); St. Joe Paper Co. v. Department of Revenue, 460 So.2d 399 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), rev. denied, 467 So.2d 999 (Fla. 1985). In analyzing whether "other obligations issued" might include sums due under a government contract, we turn to the doctrine of ejusdem generis, a familiar tenet of statutory construction that helps discern legislative intent.

Under the doctrine of ejusdem generis, where an enumeration of specific things is followed by some more general word, the general word will usually be construed to refer to things of the same kind or species as those specifically enumerated. State ex rel. Wedgworth Farms, Inc. v. Thompson, 101 So.2d 381, 385 (Fla. 1958). With respect to the language in section 810.06, the word "implement" should be interpreted to refer to objects similar in nature to "tools" or "machines."

All property is subject to taxation unless expressly exempt and exemptions are strictly construed against the party claiming them. State ex rel. Wedgworth Farms, Inc. v. Thompson, 101 So.2d 381 (Fla. 1958). Accordingly, the decision of the District Court of Appeal, First District, is quashed, the writ to the District Court of Appeal, Second District, is discharged, and the causes remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

"The rule is that all property is subject to taxation unless expressly exempt and such exemptions are strictly construed against the party claiming them. State ex rel. Wedgworth Farms, Inc. v. Thompson, 101 So.2d 381 (Fla. 1958)." Williams v. Jones, supra, at 435.

The rule is that all property is subject to taxation unless expressly exempt and such exemptions are strictly construed against the party claiming them. State ex rel. Wedgworth Farms, Inc. v. Thompson, 101 So.2d 381 (Fla. 1958). Appellants contend that Section 196.001, Florida Statutes, cannot be construed to impose the tax herein asserted in that it appears in the chapter on exemptions.

Exemptions to taxing statutes are special favors granted by the Legislature and are to be strictly construed against the taxpayer. Green v. City of Pensacola, 126 So.2d 566, 569 (Fla. 1961); State v. Thompson, 101 So.2d 381, 386 (Fla. 1958). Thus, if Szabo is to escape the tax that was levied on others engaging in the sale of prepared foods for immediate consumption, he must clearly show that vending machines fall within the exemption, with any doubt being resolved in favor of the State.

" Wedgeworth Farms, Inc. v. Thompson, 101 So.2d 381, 386 (Fla. 1958): "While a taxing statute is always construed liberally in favor of the taxpayer and against the tax collector, we must remember that exemptions and special benefits to particular taxpayers that remove them from the more burdensome requirements applicable to others are construed strictly against the exemption." Fla. Stat. § 196.25 was repealed by Laws 1971, c. 71-133, § 15, effective December 31, 1971.

We reach this result by simple application of the maxim Noscitur a sociis. State el rel. Wedgworth Farms, Inc. v. Thompson, 101 So.2d 381 (Fla. 1958). Additionally, the placing of money with appellant by its customers is not a deposit within the contemplation of the Banking Code, of which Chapter 659 is a part.

The petitioners here seek an alternative writ of mandamus from this Court directing the respondents who constitute the Dade County Canvassing Board pursuant to the provisions of Sections 102.166 and 102.167, Florida Statutes 1967, F.S.A., to examine the counters on each voting machine used in the second primary election in Dade County, Florida and determine whether the returns correctly reflect the votes cast in the election for United States Senator in said County. Serious questions have been raised concerning the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain these proceedings (see State ex rel. Wedgworth Farms, Inc. v. Thompson, Fla., 101 So.2d 381; State ex rel. Winton v. Town of Davie, Fla., 127 So.2d 671 and State ex rel. Clendinen v. Dekle, Fla., 173 So.2d 452) but it is apparent from the disclosures of the petition that it is the intention of the respondents constituting the Dade County Canvassing Board to erase the counters on all of said machines beginning at 5 o'clock p.m., Friday, June 7th, unless this Court directs otherwise. The erasure of such counters would render these proceedings moot and would in effect prevent this Court, in the event it determines it has jurisdiction, from the complete exercise thereof.

The respondent State Canvassing Board is clearly a state agency representing the public generally and its officials are state officers. State ex rel. Wedgworth Farms, Inc. v. Thompson, Fla. 1958, 101 So.2d 381. In this case the respondent was the State Motor Vehicle Commissioner. As to whether she was a proper respondent in an original mandamus proceeding in this Court under the Constitution, we said: "* * * We think the instant case typifies the sort of proceeding that falls within our jurisdiction as delineated by the * * * language of the Constitution."