UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C.  20549

Form 10-QSB

(Mark One)

[X]

QUARTERLY REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the quarterly period ended March 31, 2006

[ ]

TRANSITION REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT

For the transition period from _________to _________

Commission file number 0-9704

ANGELES PARTNERS IX

(Exact name of small business issuer as specified in its charter)

California	95-3417137
(State or other jurisdiction of	(I.R.S. Employer
incorporation or organization)	(Identification No.)

55 Beattie Place, P.O. Box 1089

Greenville, South Carolina  29602

(Address of principal executive offices)

(864) 239-1000

(Issuer's telephone number)

Check whether the issuer (1) filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act during the past 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports) and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes  X   No ___

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act) Yes __ No   X_   

PART I – FINANCIAL INFORMATION

ITEM 1.

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

ANGELES PARTNERS IX

STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS IN LIQUIDATION

(Unaudited)

(in thousands)

March 31, 2006

Assets
Cash and cash equivalents	$    110
Receivables	5
	115
Liabilities
Other liabilities	29
Estimated costs during the period of liquidation	30
	59
Net assets in liquidation	$     56

See Accompanying Notes to Financial Statements

ANGELES PARTNERS IX

STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN NET ASSETS IN LIQUIDATION

(Unaudited)

(in thousands)

	For the Three Months
	Ended
	March 31,
	2006	2005
Net assets in liquidation at beginning of period	$    55	$    83
Changes in net assets in liquidation attributed to:
Decrease in cash and cash equivalents	(9)	(31)
Increase in receivables and deposits	--	5
Decrease in other liabilities	--	31
Decrease in estimated costs during the period of
liquidation	10	11
Net assets in liquidation at end of period	$    56	$    99

See Accompanying Notes to Financial Statements

ANGELES PARTNERS IX

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Unaudited)

Note A – Basis of Presentation

As of December 31, 2003, Angeles Partners IX (the “Partnership” or “Registrant”) adopted the liquidation basis of accounting due to the sales of its two remaining investment properties.

As a result of the decision to liquidate the Partnership, the Partnership changed its basis of accounting for its financial statements at December 31, 2003, to the liquidation basis of accounting.  Consequently, assets have been valued at estimated net realizable value and liabilities are presented at their estimated settlement amounts, including estimated costs associated with carrying out the liquidation of the Partnership. The valuation of assets and liabilities necessarily requires many estimates and assumptions and there are substantial uncertainties in carrying out the liquidation. The actual realization of assets and settlement of liabilities could be higher or lower than amounts indicated and is based upon the General Partner’s best estimates as of the date of the financial statements.

The general partner of the Partnership, Angeles Realty Corporation (the “General Partner” or “ARC”) a subsidiary of Apartment Investment and Management Company (“AIMCO”), a publicly traded real estate investment trust, estimates that the liquidation process will be completed by December 31, 2006.  Because the success in realization of assets and the settlement of liabilities, including liabilities related to the legal cases disclosed in “Note B – Contingencies”, is based on the General Partner’s best estimates, the liquidation period may be shorter than projected or it may be extended beyond the projected date of liquidation.

Recent Accounting Pronouncement

In May 2005, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued SFAS No. 154 “Accounting Changes and Error Corrections”, which replaces APB Opinion No. 20 and SFAS No. 3, and changes the requirements for the accounting for and reporting of a change in accounting principle. This statement is effective for accounting changes and corrections of errors made in fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2005. The Partnership adopted SFAS No. 154 effective January 1, 2006. The adoption of SFAS No. 154 did not have a material effect on the Partnership’s financial condition or results of operations.

Note B – Contingencies

In March 1998, several putative unit holders of limited partnership units of the Partnership commenced an action entitled Rosalie Nuanes, et al. v. Insignia Financial Group, Inc., et al. (the "Nuanes action") in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo. The plaintiffs named as defendants, among others, the Partnership, its General Partner and several of their affiliated partnerships and corporate entities. The action purported to assert claims on behalf of a class of limited partners and derivatively on behalf of a number of limited partnerships (including the Partnership) that are named as nominal defendants, challenging, among other things, the acquisition of interests in certain General Partner entities by Insignia Financial Group, Inc. ("Insignia") and entities that were, at one time, affiliates of Insignia; past tender offers by the Insignia affiliates to acquire limited partnership u nits; management of the partnerships by the Insignia affiliates; and the series of transactions which closed on October 1, 1998 and February 26, 1999 whereby Insignia and Insignia Properties Trust,

respectively, were merged into AIMCO. The plaintiffs sought monetary damages and equitable relief, including judicial dissolution of the Partnership. In addition, during the third quarter of 2001, a complaint captioned Heller v. Insignia Financial Group (the "Heller action") was filed against the same defendants that are named in the Nuanes action. On or about August 6, 2001, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint. The Heller action was brought as a purported derivative action, and asserted claims for, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty, unfair competition, conversion, unjust enrichment, and judicial dissolution. On January 28, 2002, the trial court granted defendants motion to strike the complaint.  Plaintiffs took an appeal from this order.

On January 8, 2003, the parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement in proposed settlement of the Nuanes action and the Heller action. On June 13, 2003, the court granted final approval of the settlement and entered judgment in both the Nuanes and Heller actions. On August 12, 2003, an objector ("Objector") filed an appeal (the “Appeal”) seeking to vacate and/or reverse the order approving the settlement and entering judgment thereto. On May 4, 2004, the Objector filed a second appeal challenging the court’s use of a referee and its order requiring Objector to pay those fees.

On March 21, 2005, the Court of Appeals issued opinions in both pending appeals.  With regard to the settlement and judgment entered thereto, the Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s order and remanded to the trial court for further findings on the basis that the “state of the record is insufficient to permit meaningful appellate review”.  The matter was transferred back to the trial court on June 21, 2005.  With regard to the second appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the order requiring the Objector to pay referee fees. With respect to the related Heller appeal, on July 28, 2005, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s order striking the first amended complaint.

On August 18, 2005, Objector and his counsel filed a motion to disqualify the trial court based on a peremptory challenge and filed a motion to disqualify for cause on October 17, 2005, both of which were ultimately denied and/or struck by the trial court.  On or about October 13, 2005 Objector filed a motion to intervene and on or about October 19, 2005 filed both a motion to take discovery relating to the adequacy of plaintiffs as derivative representatives and a motion to dissolve the anti-suit injunction in connection with settlement.  On November 14, 2005, Plaintiffs filed a Motion For Further Findings pursuant to the remand ordered by the Court of Appeals. Defendants joined in that motion.  On February 3, 2006, the Court held a hearing on the various matters pending before it and has ordered additional briefing from the parties and Objector. The parties and Objector submitted one final round of briefing to the Court and the mat ter has been submitted for the Court’s decision.

The General Partner does not anticipate that any costs to the Partnership, whether legal or settlement costs, associated with these cases will be material to the Partnership’s overall operations.

AIMCO Properties L.P. and NHP Management Company, both affiliates of the General Partner, are defendants in a lawsuit alleging that they willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) by failing to pay maintenance workers overtime for all hours worked in excess of forty per week. The complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, attempts to bring a collective action under the FLSA and seeks to certify state subclasses in California, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. Specifically, the plaintiffs contend that AIMCO Properties L.P. and NHP Management Company failed to compensate maintenance workers for time that they were required to be "on-call". Additionally, the complaint alleges AIMCO Properties L.P. and NHP Management Company failed to comply with the FLSA in compensating maintenance workers for time that they worked in excess of 40 hours in

a week.   In June 2005 the Court conditionally certified the collective action on both the on-call and overtime issues, which allows the plaintiffs to provide notice of the collective action to all non-exempt maintenance workers from August 7, 2000 through the present.  Notices have been sent out to all current and former hourly maintenance workers. Although 1,049 individuals opted-in to the class the defendants will be challenging the eligibility and timeliness of some. Defendants will have the opportunity to move to decertify the collective action with briefing that commences in August.  Because the court denied plaintiffs’ motion to certify state subclasses, on September 26, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a class action with the same allegations in the Superior Court of California (Contra Costa County), and on November 5, 2005 in Montgomery County Maryland Circuit Court.  The California case has been stayed, while disco very in the Maryland case proceeds. Although the outcome of any litigation is uncertain, AIMCO Properties, L.P. does not believe that the ultimate outcome will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial condition or results of operations. Similarly, the General Partner does not believe that the ultimate outcome will have a material adverse effect on the Partnership’s financial condition.

The Partnership is unaware of any other pending or outstanding litigation matters involving it that are not of a routine nature arising in the ordinary course of business.

ITEM 2.

MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OR PLAN OF OPERATION

The matters discussed in this report contain certain forward-looking statements, including, without limitation, statements regarding future financial performance and the effect of government regulations. Actual results may differ materially from those described in the forward-looking statements and will be affected by a variety of risks and factors including, without limitation: national and local economic conditions; the terms of governmental regulations that affect the Registrant and interpretations of those regulations; litigation, including costs associated with prosecuting and defending claims and any adverse outcomes, and possible environmental liabilities. Readers should carefully review the Registrant's financial statements and the notes thereto, as well as the risk factors described in the documents the Registrant files from time to time with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

As of December 31, 2003, the Partnership adopted the liquidation basis of accounting, due to the sales of its two remaining investment properties.

As a result of the decision to liquidate the Partnership, the Partnership changed its basis of accounting for its financial statements at December 31, 2003, to the liquidation basis of accounting.  Consequently, assets have been valued at estimated net realizable value and liabilities are presented at their estimated settlement amounts, including estimated costs associated with carrying out the liquidation of the Partnership. The valuation of assets and liabilities necessarily requires many estimates and assumptions and there are substantial uncertainties in carrying out the liquidation. The actual realization of assets and settlement of liabilities could be higher or lower than amounts indicated and is based upon estimates of the General Partner as of the date of the financial statements.

During the three months ended March 31, 2006, net assets in liquidation increased by approximately $1,000. The increase in net assets in liquidation is due to a decrease in estimated costs during the period of liquidation, partially offset by a decrease in cash and cash equivalents. The decrease in cash and cash equivalents is due primarily to the payment of the Partnership’s annual audit invoice.

During the three months ended March 31, 2005, net assets in liquidation increased by approximately $16,000. The increase in net assets in liquidation is primarily due to decreases in other liabilities and estimated costs during the period of liquidation and an increase in receivables, partially offset by a decrease in cash and cash equivalents. The decreases in other liabilities and cash and cash equivalents are both due primarily to the payment of the Partnership’s annual audit invoice. The increase in receivables and deposits is due to the payment of nonresident withholding taxes on behalf of the limited partners.

The statement of net assets in liquidation as of March 31, 2006 includes approximately $30,000 of costs that the General Partner estimates will be incurred during the period of liquidation, based on the assumption that the liquidation process will be completed by December 31, 2006.  Because the success in realization of assets and the settlement of liabilities, including liabilities related to the legal cases discussed in “Item 1. Financial Statements - Note B – Contingencies” to the financial statements, is based on the General Partner’s best estimates, the liquidation period may be shorter than projected or extended beyond December 31, 2006, the projected date of liquidation.

The Partnership made no distributions to the partners for the three months ended March 31, 2006 and 2005.

Other

In addition to its indirect ownership of the general partner interests in the Partnership, AIMCO and its affiliates owned 13,501 limited partnership units (the "Units") in the Partnership representing 67.59% of the outstanding Units at March 31, 2006.  A number of these Units were acquired pursuant to tender offers made by

AIMCO or its affiliates.  Pursuant to the Partnership Agreement, unitholders holding a majority of the Units are entitled to take action with respect to a variety of matters that include, but are not limited to, voting on certain amendments to the Partnership Agreement and voting to remove the General Partner.  As a result of its ownership of 67.59% of the outstanding Units, AIMCO and its affiliates are in a position to control all voting decisions with respect to the Partnership.  Although the General Partner owes fiduciary duties to the limited partners of the Partnership, the General Partner also owes fiduciary duties to AIMCO as its sole stockholder. As a result, the duties of the General Partner, as general partner, to the Partnership and its limited partners may come into conflict with the duties of the General Partner to AIMCO as its sole stockholder.

ITEM 3.

CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES

(a)

Disclosure Controls and Procedures. The Partnership’s management, with the participation of the principal executive officer and principal financial officer of the General Partner, who are the equivalent of the Partnership’s principal executive officer and principal financial officer, respectively, has evaluated the effectiveness of the Partnership’s disclosure controls and procedures (as such term is defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”)) as of the end of the period covered by this report. Based on such evaluation, the principal executive officer and principal financial officer of the General Partner, who are the equivalent of the Partnership’s principal executive officer and principal financial officer, respectively, have concluded that, as of the end of such period, the Partnership’s disclosure controls and procedures are effective.

(b)

Internal Control Over Financial Reporting. There have not been any changes in the Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting (as such term is defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) under the Exchange Act) during the fiscal quarter to which this report relates that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, the Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting.

PART II - OTHER INFORMATION

ITEM 1.

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

In March 1998, several putative unit holders of limited partnership units of the Partnership commenced an action entitled Rosalie Nuanes, et al. v. Insignia Financial Group, Inc., et al. (the "Nuanes action") in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo. The plaintiffs named as defendants, among others, the Partnership, its General Partner and several of their affiliated partnerships and corporate entities. The action purported to assert claims on behalf of a class of limited partners and derivatively on behalf of a number of limited partnerships (including the Partnership) that are named as nominal defendants, challenging, among other things, the acquisition of interests in certain General Partner entities by Insignia Financial Group, Inc. ("Insignia") and entities that were, at one time, affiliates of Insignia; past tender offers by the Insignia affiliates to acquire limited partnership u nits; management of the partnerships by the Insignia affiliates; and the series of transactions which closed on October 1, 1998 and February 26, 1999 whereby Insignia and Insignia Properties Trust, respectively, were merged into AIMCO. The plaintiffs sought monetary damages and equitable relief, including judicial dissolution of the Partnership. In addition, during the third quarter of 2001, a complaint captioned Heller v. Insignia Financial Group (the "Heller action") was filed against the same defendants that are named in the Nuanes action. On or about August 6, 2001, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint. The Heller action was brought as a purported derivative action, and asserted claims for, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty, unfair competition, conversion, unjust enrichment, and judicial dissolution. On January 28, 2002, the trial court granted defendants motion to strike the complaint.  Plaintiffs took an appeal from this order.

On January 8, 2003, the parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement in proposed settlement of the Nuanes action and the Heller action. On June 13, 2003, the court granted final approval of the settlement and entered judgment in both the Nuanes and Heller actions. On August 12, 2003, an objector ("Objector") filed an appeal (the “Appeal”) seeking to vacate and/or reverse the order approving the settlement and entering judgment thereto. On May 4, 2004, the Objector filed a second appeal challenging the court’s use of a referee and its order requiring Objector to pay those fees.

On March 21, 2005, the Court of Appeals issued opinions in both pending appeals.  With regard to the settlement and judgment entered thereto, the Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s order and remanded to the trial court for further findings on the basis that the “state of the record is insufficient to permit meaningful appellate review”.  The matter was transferred back to the trial court on June 21, 2005.  With regard to the second appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the order requiring the Objector to pay referee fees. With respect to the related Heller appeal, on July 28, 2005, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s order striking the first amended complaint.

On August 18, 2005, Objector and his counsel filed a motion to disqualify the trial court based on a peremptory challenge and filed a motion to disqualify for cause on October 17, 2005, both of which were ultimately denied and/or struck by the trial court.  On or about October 13, 2005 Objector filed a motion to intervene and on or about October 19, 2005 filed both a motion to take discovery relating to the adequacy of plaintiffs as derivative representatives and a motion to dissolve the anti-suit injunction in connection with settlement.  On November 14, 2005, Plaintiffs filed a Motion For Further Findings pursuant to the remand ordered by the Court of Appeals. Defendants joined in that motion.  On February 3, 2006, the Court held a hearing on the various matters pending before it and has ordered additional briefing from the parties and Objector. The parties and Objector submitted one final round of briefing to the Court and the mat ter has been submitted for the Court’s decision.

The General Partner does not anticipate that any costs to the Partnership, whether legal or settlement costs, associated with these cases will be material to the Partnership’s overall operations.

AIMCO Properties L.P. and NHP Management Company, both affiliates of the General Partner, are defendants in a lawsuit alleging that they willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) by failing to pay maintenance workers overtime for all hours worked in excess of forty per week. The complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, attempts to bring a collective action under the FLSA and seeks to certify state subclasses in California, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. Specifically, the plaintiffs contend that AIMCO Properties L.P. and NHP Management Company failed to compensate maintenance workers for time that they were required to be "on-call". Additionally, the complaint alleges AIMCO Properties L.P. and NHP Management Company failed to comply with the FLSA in compensating maintenance workers for time that they worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.   In June 2005 the Court conditionally certified the collective action on both the on-call and overtime issues, which allows the plaintiffs to provide notice of the collective action to all non-exempt maintenance workers from August 7, 2000 through the present.  Notices have been sent out to all current and former hourly maintenance workers. Although 1,049 individuals opted-in to the class the defendants will be challenging the eligibility and timeliness of some. Defendants will have the opportunity to move to decertify the collective action with briefing that commences in August.  Because the court denied plaintiffs’ motion to certify state subclasses, on September 26, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a class action with the same allegations in the Superior Court of California (Contra Costa County), and on November 5, 2005 in Montgomery County Maryland Circuit Court.  The California case has been stayed, while discovery in the Maryland case proceeds. Although the outcome of any litigation is uncertain, AIMCO Properties, L.P. does not believe that the ultimate outcome will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial condition or results of operations. Similarly, the General Partner does not believe that the ultimate outcome will have a material adverse effect on the Partnership’s financial condition.

ITEM 5.

OTHER INFORMATION

None.

ITEM 6.

EXHIBITS

See Exhibit Index.

SIGNATURES

In accordance with the requirements of the Exchange Act, the Registrant caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

ANGELES PARTNERS IX

(A California Limited Partnership)

By:   Angeles Realty Corporation

  General Partner

By:   /s/Martha L. Long

      Martha L. Long

      Senior Vice President

By:   /s/Stephen B. Waters

      Stephen B. Waters

      Vice President

Date: May 15, 2006

ANGELES PARTNERS IX

EXHIBIT INDEX

Exhibit Number

Description of Exhibit

3.1

Amended Certificate and Agreement of the Limited Partnership filed in Form S-11 dated December 24, 1984 incorporated herein by reference.

31.1

Certification of equivalent of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Securities Exchange Act Rules 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a), as Adopted Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

31.2

Certification of equivalent of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Securities Exchange Act Rules 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a), as Adopted Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

32.1

Certification of the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Martha L. Long, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Angeles Partners IX;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.

The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:

(a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.

The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.

Date: May 15, 2006

/s/Martha L. Long

Martha L. Long

Senior Vice President of Angeles Realty Corporation, equivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership

Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Stephen B. Waters, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Angeles Partners IX;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.

The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:

(a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.

The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.

Date: May 15, 2006

/s/Stephen B. Waters

Stephen B. Waters

Vice President of Angeles Realty Corporation, equivalent of the chief financial officer of the Partnership

Exhibit 32.1

Certification of CEO and CFO

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Angeles Partners IX (the "Partnership"), for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Martha L. Long, as the equivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership, and Stephen B. Waters, as the equivalent of the chief financial officer of the Partnership, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

(1)

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.

      /s/Martha L. Long

Name: Martha L. Long

Date: May 15, 2006

      /s/Stephen B. Waters

Name: Stephen B. Waters

Date: May 15, 2006

This certification is furnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.