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 September 30, 2006

[ ]

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

For the transition period from ________________ to ________________

Commission file number 0-13261

SHELTER PROPERTIES VI

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

   South Carolina

57-0755618

(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

SHELTER PROPERTIES VI

BALANCE SHEET

(Unaudited)

(in thousands, except unit data)

September 30, 2006

Assets
Cash and cash equivalents		$    167
Receivables and deposits		39
Other assets		127
Investment property:
Land	$    420
Buildings and related personal property	4,906
	5,326
Less accumulated depreciation	(3,558)	1,768
		$  2,101
Liabilities and Partners' Capital (Deficiency)
Liabilities
Accounts payable		$     56
Tenant security deposit liabilities		26
Accrued property taxes		40
Other liabilities		129
Mortgage note payable		3,811
Partners' Capital (Deficiency)
General partners	$    240
Limited partners (42,324 units issued and
outstanding)	(2,201)	(1,961)
		$  2,101

See Accompanying Notes to Financial Statements

SHELTER PROPERTIES VI

STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

(Unaudited)

(in thousands, except per unit data)

	Three Months Ended		Nine Months Ended
	September 30,		September 30,
	2006	2005	2006	2005
		(Restated)		(Restated)
Revenues:
Rental income	$   252	$   238	$   714	$   664
Other income	32	29	103	96
Total revenues	284	267	817	760
Expenses:
Operating	171	161	545	456
General and administrative	32	34	104	111
Depreciation	59	53	170	155
Interest	70	74	213	220
Property taxes	13	14	40	42
Total expenses	345	336	1,072	984
Loss from continuing operations	(61)	(69)	(255)	(224)
Income (loss) from discontinued
operations (Notes A and C)	--	17	(126)	(17)
Gain from sale of discontinued
operations (Note C)	45	--	2,386	--
Net (loss) income	$   (16)	$   (52)	$ 2,005	$  (241)
Net (loss) income allocated to
general partners	$    --	$    (1)	$    20	$    (2)
Net (loss) income allocated to
limited partners	(16)	(51)	1,985	(239)
	$   (16)	$   (52)	$ 2,005	$  (241)
Per limited partnership unit:
Loss from continuing operations	$ (1.44)	$ (1.60)	$ (5.96)	$ (5.25)
Income (loss) from discontinued
operations	--	0.40	(2.95)	(0.40)
Gain from sale of discontinued
operations	1.06	--	55.81	--
Net (loss) income per limited
partnership unit	$ (0.38)	$ (1.20)	$ 46.90	$ (5.65)
Distributions per limited partnership
unit	$ 39.86	$    --	$ 44.11	$    --

See Accompanying Notes to Financial Statements

SHELTER PROPERTIES VI

STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN PARTNERS' CAPITAL (DEFICIENCY)

(Unaudited)

(in thousands, except unit data)

	Limited
	Partnership	General	Limited
	Units	Partners	Partners	Total
Original capital contributions	42,324	$     2	$42,324	$42,326
Partners' capital (deficiency)
at December 31, 2005	42,324	$   220	$(2,319)	$(2,099)
Distributions to partners	--	--	(1,867)	(1,867)
Net income for the nine months
ended September 30, 2006	--	20	1,985	2,005
Partners' capital (deficiency)
at September 30, 2006	42,324	$   240	$(2,201)	$(1,961)

See Accompanying Notes to Financial Statements

SHELTER PROPERTIES VI

STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(Unaudited)

(in thousands)

	Nine Months Ended
	September 30,
	2006	2005
Cash flows from operating activities:
Net income (loss)	$ 2,005	$  (241)
Adjustments to reconcile net income (loss) to net
cash (used in) provided by operating activities:
Gain from sale of discontinued operations	(2,386)	--
Depreciation	261	417
Amortization of loan costs	15	34
Loss on early extinguishment of debt	32	--
Change in accounts:
Receivables and deposits	26	9
Other assets	21	(19)
Accounts payable	3	25
Tenant security deposit liabilities	(13)	8
Accrued property taxes	(12)	3
Due to affiliates	--	9
Other liabilities	(28)	(32)
Net cash (used in) provided by operating activities	(76)	213
Cash flows from investing activities:
Property improvements and replacements	(224)	(352)
Net proceeds from sale of discontinued operations	4,114	--
Net withdrawals from restricted escrows	--	55
Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities	3,890	(297)
Cash flows from financing activities:
Payments on mortgage notes payable	(141)	(182)
Repayment of mortgage note payable	(2,138)	--
Advances from affiliate	12	138
Repayment of advances from affiliate	(12)	(30)
Distributions to partners	(1,867)	--
Net cash used in financing activities	(4,146)	(74)
Net decrease in cash and cash equivalents	(332)	(158)
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period	499	269
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period	$   167	$   111
Supplemental disclosure of cash flow information:
Cash paid for interest	$   273	$   338
Supplemental disclosure of non-cash activity:
Property improvements and replacements included in
accounts payable	$    --	$    61

Included in property improvements and replacements for the nine months ended September 30, 2005 are approximately $42,000 of improvements which were included in accounts payable at December 31, 2004.

See Accompanying Notes to Financial Statements

SHELTER PROPERTIES VI

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Unaudited)

Note A - Basis of Presentation

The accompanying unaudited financial statements of Shelter Properties VI (the "Partnership" or "Registrant") have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles for interim financial information and with the instructions to Form 10-QSB and Item 310 (b) of Regulation S-B. Accordingly, they do not include all of the information and footnotes required by generally accepted accounting principles for complete financial statements. The general partner responsible for management of the Partnership's business is Shelter Realty VI Corporation ("the Corporate General Partner"). The Corporate General Partner is a subsidiary of Apartment Investment and Management Company ("AIMCO"), a publicly traded real estate investment trust. The non-corporate general partner, AIMCO Properties, L.P., is also an affiliate of AIMCO. In the opinion of the Corporate General Partner, all adjustments (consisting o f normal recurring accruals) considered necessary for a fair presentation have been included. Operating results for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2006 are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2006. For further information, refer to the financial statements and footnotes thereto included in the Partnership's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005.

In accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 144, “Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets”, the accompanying statements of operations for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2005 have been restated as of January 1, 2005 to reflect the operations of Rocky Creek Apartments as income (loss) from discontinued operations due to its sale on June 30, 2006 (see Note C). The accompanying statements of operations also reflect the operations of Carriage House Apartments, which was sold in October 2005 and River Reach Apartments, which was sold during 2004, as income (loss) from discontinued operations.

Note B - Reconciliation of Cash Flows

The following, as required by the partnership agreement of the Partnership (the “Partnership Agreement”), is a reconciliation of "Net cash (used in) provided by operating activities" on the accompanying statements of cash flows to "Net cash from operations", as defined in the Partnership Agreement. However, "Net cash from operations" should not be considered an alternative to net income (loss) as an indicator of the Partnership's operating performance or to cash flows as a measure of liquidity.

	Nine Months Ended
	September 30,
	2006	2005
	(in thousands)
Net cash (used in) provided by operating activities	$   (76)	$   213
Payments on mortgage notes payable	(141)	(182)
Property improvements and replacements	(224)	(352)
Change in restricted escrows, net	--	55
Changes in reserves for net operating
liabilities	3	(3)
Net cash used in operations	$  (438)	$  (269)

Note C – Disposition of Investment Property

On June 30, 2006, the Partnership sold Rocky Creek Apartments to a third party for a gross sale price of approximately $4,185,000. The net proceeds realized by the Partnership were approximately $4,114,000 after payment of closing costs and a prepayment penalty owed by the Partnership. The Partnership used approximately $2,138,000 of the net proceeds to repay the mortgage encumbering the property. The Partnership realized a gain of approximately $2,386,000 as a result of the sale, which is included in gain from sale of discontinued operations for the nine months ended September 30, 2006. In addition, the Partnership recorded a loss on the early extinguishment of debt of approximately $32,000 as a result of the write-off of unamortized loan costs and a prepayment penalty, which is included in income (loss) from discontinued operations for the nine months ended September 30, 2006. Also included in the income (loss) from discontinued operations for th e nine months ended September 30, 2006 is a loss of approximately $106,000, including revenues of approximately $368,000. Included in income (loss) from discontinued operations for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2005 are income of approximately $5,000 and $12,000, respectively, including revenues of approximately $219,000 and $634,000, respectively.

During the three months ended September 30, 2006, certain accruals of approximately $45,000 established during the three and six months ended June 30, 2006 related to the sale of Rocky Creek Apartments were reversed due to actual costs being less than anticipated. These accrual reversals are included as an increase in gain from sale of discontinued operations for the three months ended September 30, 2006.

On October 26, 2005, the Partnership sold Carriage House Apartments to a third party. The results of the property’s operations for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2005, income of approximately $12,000 and loss of approximately $42,000, respectively, are included in income (loss) from discontinued operations and include revenues of approximately $178,000 and $543,000, respectively. The loss from discontinued operations for the nine months ended September 30, 2006 includes income of approximately $12,000 as a result of the collection of a payroll related refund.

On August 30, 2004, the Partnership sold River Reach Apartments to a third party. The loss from discontinued operations for the nine months ended September 30, 2005 includes income of approximately $13,000 due to the collection of tenant receivables.

Note D - Transactions with Affiliated Parties

The Partnership has no employees and depends on the Corporate General Partner and its affiliates for the management and administration of all Partnership activities. The Partnership Agreement provides for certain payments to affiliates for services and reimbursement of certain expenses incurred by affiliates on behalf of the Partnership.  

Affiliates of the Corporate General Partner receive 5% of gross receipts from both of the Partnership's properties as compensation for providing property management services. The Partnership paid to such affiliates approximately $58,000 and $95,000 for the nine months ended September 30, 2006 and 2005 respectively, which are included in operating expenses and income (loss) from discontinued operations.

Affiliates of the Corporate General Partner charged the Partnership for reimbursement of accountable administrative expenses amounting to approximately $60,000 and $91,000 for the nine months ended September 30, 2006 and 2005, respectively, which are included in general and administrative expenses, investment property and gain from sale of discontinued operations. The portion of these reimbursements included in investment property and gain from sale of discontinued operations for the nine months ended September 30, 2006 and 2005 are fees related to construction management services provided by an affiliate of the Corporate General Partner of approximately $13,000 and $30,000, respectively.

During the nine months ended September 30, 2006, an affiliate of the Corporate General Partner advanced the Partnership approximately $12,000 to cover operating expenses at Village Gardens Apartments. Interest was charged at prime plus 2% and was less than $1,000 for the nine months ended September 30, 2006. The advance and accrued interest were repaid during the nine months ended September 30, 2006.

During the nine months ended September 30, 2005, an affiliate of the Corporate General Partner advanced the Partnership approximately $138,000 to cover capital expenditures and operating expenses at Village Gardens Apartments and Rocky Creek Apartments.  Interest was charged at the prime rate plus 2% and was approximately $1,000 for the nine months ended September 30, 2005.  During the nine months ended September 30, 2005, the Partnership made a payment of approximately $30,000 on the outstanding advances. The balance of the outstanding advances was completely repaid during the year ended December 31, 2005.

The Partnership insures its properties up to certain limits through coverage provided by AIMCO which is generally self-insured for a portion of losses and liabilities related to workers compensation, property casualty, general liability and vehicle liability. The Partnership insures its properties above the AIMCO limits through insurance policies obtained by AIMCO from insurers unaffiliated with the Corporate General Partner. During the nine months ended September 30, 2006 and 2005, the Partnership was charged by AIMCO and its affiliates approximately $43,000 and $42,000, respectively, for insurance coverage and fees associated with policy claims administration.

Note E – 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 Corporate 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 Corporate 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 l imited partnership units; 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 ordered additional briefing from the parties and Objector. On June 30, 2006, the trial court entered an order confirming its approval of the class act ion settlement and entering judgment thereto after the Court of Appeals had remanded the matter for further findings.  The substantive terms of the settlement agreement remain unchanged.  The trial court also entered supplemental orders on July 1, 2006, denying Objector’s Motion to File a Complaint in Intervention, Objector’s Motion for Leave of Discovery and Objector’s Motion to Dissolve the Anti-Suit Injunction.  Notice of Entry of Judgment was served on July 10, 2006. On August 31, 2006, the Objector filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court’s June 30, 2006 and July 1, 2006 orders.

The Corporate 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 Corporate 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.  Approximately 1,049 individuals opted in to the class. The defendants moved to decertify the collective action on both issues and the plaintiffs have responded.  Because the court denied plaintiffs’ motion to certify state subclasses, in September 2005, the plaintiffs filed a class action with the same allegations in the Superior Court of California (Contra Costa County), and in November 2005 in Montgomery County Maryland Circuit Court.  The California and Maryland cases have been stayed pending the outcome of the decertification motion in the District of Columbia case.  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 Corporate General Partner do es not believe that the ultimate outcome will have a material adverse effect on the Partnership’s financial condition or results of operations.

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

Environmental

Various Federal, state and local laws subject property owners or operators to liability for management, and the costs of removal or remediation, of certain hazardous substances present on a property. Such laws often impose liability without regard to whether the owner or operator knew of, or was responsible for, the release or presence of the hazardous substances. The presence of, or the failure to manage or remedy properly, hazardous substances may adversely affect occupancy at affected apartment communities and the ability to sell or finance affected properties. In addition to the costs associated with investigation and remediation actions brought by government agencies, and potential fines or penalties imposed by such agencies in connection therewith, the presence of hazardous substances on a property could result in claims by private plaintiffs for personal injury, disease, disability or other infirmities. Various laws also impose liability for the cost of removal, remediation or disposal of hazardous substances through a licensed disposal or treatment facility. Anyone who arranges for the disposal or treatment of hazardous substances is potentially liable under such laws. These laws often impose liability whether or not the person arranging for the disposal ever owned or operated the disposal facility. In connection with the ownership, operation and management of its property, the Partnership could potentially be liable for environmental liabilities or costs associated with its property.  

Mold

The Partnership is aware of lawsuits against owners and managers of multifamily properties asserting claims of personal injury and property damage caused by the presence of mold, some of which have resulted in substantial monetary judgments or settlements.  The Partnership has only limited insurance coverage for property damage loss claims arising from the presence of mold and for personal injury claims related to mold exposure.  Affiliates of the Corporate General Partner have implemented a national policy and procedures to prevent or eliminate mold from its properties and the Corporate General Partner believes that these measures will minimize the effects that mold could have on residents.  To date, the Partnership has not incurred any material costs or liabilities relating to claims of mold exposure or to abate mold conditions.  Because the law regarding mold is unsettled and subject to change the Corporate General Partner ca n make no assurance that liabilities resulting from the presence of or exposure to mold will not have a material adverse effect on the Partnership’s financial condition or results of operations.

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; the competitive environment in which the Registrant operates; financing risks, including the risk that cash flows from operations may be insufficient to meet required payments of principal and interest; real estate risks, including variations of real estate values and the general economic climate in local markets and competition for tenants in such markets; litigation, including costs associated with prosecuting and defending cla ims 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.

The Partnership's investment property consists of one apartment complex.  The following table sets forth the average occupancy of the property for each of the nine months ended September 30, 2006 and 2005:

	Average
	Occupancy
Property	2006	2005
Village Gardens Apartments
Fort Collins, Colorado (1)	95%	87%

(1)

The Corporate General Partner attributes the increase in average occupancy at Village Gardens Apartments to improved curb appeal as a result of recent capital improvements and increased resident retention efforts.

The Partnership’s financial results depend upon a number of factors including the ability to attract and maintain tenants at the investment property, interest rates on mortgage loans, costs incurred to operate the investment property, general economic conditions and weather. As part of the ongoing business plan of the Partnership, the Corporate General Partner monitors the rental market environment of its investment property to assess the feasibility of increasing rents, maintaining or increasing occupancy levels and protecting the Partnership from increases in expenses. As part of this plan, the Corporate General Partner attempts to protect the Partnership from the burden of inflation-related increases in expenses by increasing rents and maintaining a high overall occupancy level. However, the Corporate General Partner may use rental concessions and rental rate reductions to offset softening market conditions; accordingly, there is no guarant ee that the Corporate General Partner will be able to sustain such a plan. Further, a number of factors that are outside the control of the Partnership such as the local economic climate and weather can adversely or positively affect the Partnership’s financial results.

Results of Operations

The Partnership realized net loss of approximately $16,000 and net income of approximately $2,005,000 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2006, respectively, compared to net loss of approximately $52,000 and $241,000 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2005, respectively.

In accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 144, “Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets”, the accompanying statements of operations for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2005 have been restated as of January 1, 2005 to reflect the operations of Rocky Creek Apartments as income (loss) from discontinued operations due to its sale on June 30, 2006. The accompanying statements of operations also reflect the operations of Carriage House Apartments, which was sold in October 2005 and River Reach Apartments, which was sold during 2004, as income (loss) from discontinued operations.

On June 30, 2006, the Partnership sold Rocky Creek Apartments to a third party for a gross sale price of approximately $4,185,000. The net proceeds realized by the Partnership were approximately $4,114,000 after payment of closing costs and a prepayment penalty owed by the Partnership. The Partnership used approximately $2,138,000 of the net proceeds to repay the mortgage encumbering the property. The Partnership realized a gain of approximately $2,386,000 as a result of the sale, which is included in gain from sale of discontinued operations for the nine months ended September 30, 2006. In addition, the Partnership recorded a loss on the early extinguishment of debt of approximately $32,000 as a result of the write-off of unamortized loan costs and a prepayment penalty, which is included in income (loss) from discontinued operations for the nine months ended September 30, 2006. Also included in the income (loss) from discontinued operations for th e nine months ended September 30, 2006 is a loss of approximately $106,000, including revenues of approximately $368,000. Included in income (loss) from discontinued operations for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2005 are income of approximately $5,000 and $12,000, respectively, including revenues of approximately $219,000 and $634,000, respectively.

During the three months ended September 30, 2006, certain accruals of approximately $45,000 established during the three and six months ended June 30, 2006 related to the sale of Rocky Creek Apartments were reversed due to actual costs being less than anticipated. These accrual reversals are included as an increase in gain from sale of discontinued operations for the three months ended September 30, 2006.

On October 26, 2005, the Partnership sold Carriage House Apartments to a third party. The results of the property’s operations for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2005, income of approximately $12,000 and loss of approximately $42,000, respectively, are included in income (loss) from discontinued operations and include revenues of approximately $178,000 and $543,000, respectively. The loss from discontinued operations for the nine months ended September 30, 2006 includes income of approximately $12,000 as a result of the collection of a payroll related refund.

On August 30, 2004, the Partnership sold River Reach Apartments to a third party. The loss from discontinued operations for the nine months ended September 30, 2005 includes income of approximately $13,000 due to the collection of tenant receivables.

The Partnership recognized loss from continuing operations of approximately $61,000 and $255,000 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2006, respectively, compared to loss from continuing operations of approximately $69,000 and $224,000 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2005, respectively. The decrease in loss from continuing operations for the three months ended September 30, 2006 is due to an increase in total revenues, partially offset by an increase in total expenses. The increase in loss from continuing operations for the nine months ended September 30, 2006 is due to an increase in total expenses, partially offset by an increase in total revenues. Total expenses increased for both the three and nine months ended September 30, 2006 due to increases in operating and depreciation expenses. The increase in total expenses for the nine months ended September 30, 2006 was partially offset by decreases in interest and general and administrative expenses, which remained relatively constant for the three months ended September 30, 2006.  Property tax expense remained relatively constant for both the three and nine months ended September 30, 2006.  Operating expense increased for both periods primarily due to increases in utilities and salaries and related benefits at the Partnership’s investment property. Depreciation expense increased for both periods due to property improvements and replacements placed into service at the property during the past twelve months. The decrease in interest expense for the nine months ended September 30, 2006 is primarily a result of scheduled principal payments made on the mortgage encumbering Village Gardens Apartments, which reduced the carrying balance of the loan. General and administrative expenses decreased for the nine months ended September 30, 2006 due to a decrease in management reimbursements to the Corporate Gen eral Partner as allowed under the Partnership Agreement. Also included in general and administrative expenses for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2006 and 2005 are costs associated with the quarterly and annual communications with investors and regulatory agencies and the annual audit required by the Partnership Agreement.

Total revenues increased for both periods primarily due to an increase in rental income. The increase in total revenues for the nine months ended September 30, 2006 was also due to an increase in other income, which remained relatively constant for the three months ended September 30, 2006. Rental income increased for both periods primarily due to an increase in occupancy at Village Gardens Apartments.  The increase in rental income for the nine months ended September 30, 2006 was partially offset by a decrease in the average rental rate at Village Gardens Apartments. The increase in other income for the nine months ended September 30, 2006 is primarily due to increases in interest income as a result of higher average cash balances and tenant utility reimbursements.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

At September 30, 2006 the Partnership had cash and cash equivalents of approximately $167,000, compared to approximately $111,000 at September 30, 2005. Cash and cash equivalents decreased approximately $332,000, from December 31, 2005, due to approximately $4,146,000 and $76,000 of cash used in financing and operating activities, respectively, partially offset by approximately $3,890,000 of cash provided by investing activities. Cash used in financing activities consisted of the repayment of the mortgage encumbering Rocky Creek Apartments, distributions to partners, payments of principal made on the mortgages encumbering the Partnership’s investment properties and payment on an advance received from an affiliate of the Corporate General Partner, partially offset by an advance received from an affiliate of the Corporate General Partner. Cash provided by investing activities consisted of net proceeds from the sale of Rocky Creek Apartments, par tially offset by property improvements and replacements. The Partnership invests its working capital reserves in interest bearing accounts.

The sufficiency of existing liquid assets to meet future liquidity and capital expenditure requirements is directly related to the level of capital expenditures required at the investment property to adequately maintain the physical assets and other operating needs of the Partnership and to comply with Federal, state and local legal and regulatory requirements. The Corporate General Partner monitors developments in the area of legal and regulatory compliance.  For example, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 mandates or suggests additional compliance measures with regard to governance, disclosure, audit and other areas. In light of these changes, the Partnership expects that it will incur higher expenses related to compliance. Capital improvements planned for each of the Partnership's properties are detailed below.

Rocky Creek Apartments

During the nine months ended September 30, 2006, the Partnership completed approximately $48,000 in capital improvements at Rocky Creek Apartments consisting primarily of fencing and floor covering replacement. These improvements were funded from operating cash flow. The Partnership sold Rocky Creek Apartments to a third party on June 30, 2006.

Village Gardens Apartments

During the nine months ended September 30, 2006, the Partnership completed approximately $176,000 in capital improvements at Village Gardens Apartments consisting primarily of exterior improvements, siding and swimming pool upgrades, major landscaping, and floor covering replacement. These improvements were funded from operating cash flow. The Partnership regularly evaluates the capital improvement needs of the property.  While the Partnership has no material commitments for property improvements and replacements, certain routine capital expenditures are anticipated during 2006.  Such capital expenditures will depend on the physical condition of the property as well as anticipated cash flow generated by the property.

Capital expenditures will be incurred only if cash is available from operations or from Partnership reserves. To the extent that capital improvements are completed, the Partnership's distributable cash flow, if any, may be adversely affected at least in the short term.

The Partnership’s assets are thought to be sufficient for any near term needs (exclusive of capital improvements) of the Partnership.  The mortgage indebtedness encumbering Village Gardens Apartments of approximately $3,811,000 matures in January 2021 at which time the mortgage is scheduled to be fully amortized.

The Partnership distributed the following amounts during the nine months ended September 30, 2006 and 2005 (in thousands, except per unit data):

		Per Limited		Per Limited
	Nine Months Ended	Partnership	Nine Months Ended	Partnership
	September 30, 2006	Unit	September 30, 2005	Unit
Sale (1)	$1,867	$ 44.11	$   --	$   --

 (1)

From proceeds from the August 2004 sale of River Reach Apartments, the October 2005 sale of Carriage House Apartments, and the June 2006 sale of Rocky Creek Apartments.  

Future cash distributions will depend on the levels of net cash generated from operations, property sale and/or refinancing.  The Partnership’s cash available for distribution is reviewed on a monthly basis. There can be no assurance, however, that the Partnership will generate sufficient funds from operations, after planned capital improvements, to permit additional distributions to its partners during the remainder of 2006 or subsequent periods.

Other

In addition to its indirect ownership of the general partner interests in the Partnership, AIMCO and its affiliates owned 28,435 limited partnership units (the "Units") in the Partnership representing 67.18% of the outstanding Units at September 30, 2006. A number of these Units were acquired pursuant to tender offers made by AIMCO or its affiliates. It is possible that AIMCO or its affiliates will acquire additional Units in exchange for cash or a combination of cash and units in AIMCO Properties, L.P., the operating partnership of AIMCO, either through private purchases or tender offers. 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 Corporate General Partner. As a result of its ownership of 67.18% of the outstanding Units, AIMCO and its affiliates are in a position to control all such voting decisions with respect to the Partnership. Although the Corporate General Partner owes fiduciary duties to the limited partners of the Partnership, the Corporate General Partner also owes fiduciary duties to AIMCO as its sole stock holder. As a result, the duties of the Corporate General Partner, as managing general partner, to the Partnership and its limited partners may come into conflict with the duties of the Corporate General Partner to AIMCO as its sole stockholder.

Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates

The financial statements are prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States, which require the Partnership to make estimates and assumptions. The Partnership believes that of its significant accounting policies, the following may involve a higher degree of judgment and complexity.  

Impairment of Long-Lived Asset

Investment property is recorded at cost, less accumulated depreciation, unless the carrying amount of the asset is not recoverable.  If events or circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of the property may not be recoverable, the Partnership will make an assessment of its recoverability by comparing the carrying amount to the Partnership’s estimate of the undiscounted future cash flows, excluding interest charges, of the property.   If the carrying amount exceeds the aggregate undiscounted future cash flows, the Partnership would recognize an impairment loss to the extent the carrying amount exceeds the estimated fair value of the property.

Real property investment is subject to varying degrees of risk.  Several factors may adversely affect the economic performance and value of the Partnership’s investment property.  These factors include, but are not limited to, general economic climate; competition from other apartment communities and other housing options; local conditions, such as loss of jobs or an increase in the supply of apartments that might adversely affect apartment occupancy or rental rates; changes in governmental regulations and the related cost of compliance; increases in operating costs (including real estate taxes) due to inflation and other factors, which may not be offset by increased rents; and changes in tax laws and housing laws, including the enactment of rent control laws or other laws regulating multi-family housing.  Any adverse changes in these factors could cause impairment of the Partnership’s asset.

Revenue Recognition

The Partnership generally leases apartment units for twelve-month terms or less.  The Partnership will offer rental concessions during particularly slow months or in response to heavy competition from other similar complexes in the area.  Rental income attributable to leases, net of any concessions, is recognized on a straight-line basis over the term of the lease.  The Partnership evaluates all accounts receivable from residents and establishes an allowance, after the application of security deposits, for accounts greater than 30 days past due on current tenants and all receivables due from former tenants.

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 Corporate 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 Corporate 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 con trols 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 Corporate 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 Corporate 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 l imited partnership units; 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 ordered additional briefing from the parties and Objector. On June 30, 2006, the trial court entered an order confirming its approval of the class action settlement and entering judgment thereto after the Court of Appeals had remanded the matter for further findings.  The substantive terms of the settlement agreement remain unchanged.  The trial court also entered supplemental orders on July 1, 2006, denying Objector’s Motion to File a Complaint in Intervention, Objector’s Motion for Leave of Discovery and Objector’s Motion to Dissolve the Anti-Suit Injunction.  Notice of Entry of Judgment was served on July 10, 2006. On August 31, 2006, the Objector filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court’s June 30, 2006 and July 1, 2006 orders.

The Corporate 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 Corporate 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.  Approximately 1,049 individuals opted in to the class. The defendants moved to decertify the collective action on both issues and the plaintiffs have responded.  Because the court denied plaintiffs’ motion to certify state subclasses, in September 2005, the plaintiffs filed a class action with the same allegations in the Superior Court of California (Contra Costa County), and in November 2005 in Montgomery County Maryland Circuit Court.  The California and Maryland cases have been stayed pending the outcome of the decertification motion in the District of Columbia case.  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 Corporate General Partner does not believe that the ultimate outcome will ha ve a material adverse effect on the Partnership’s financial condition or results of operations.

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.

	SHELTER PROPERTIES VI
	By:   Shelter Realty VI Corporation
	Corporate General Partner
Date: November 13, 2006	By:   /s/Martha L. Long
	Martha L. Long
	Senior Vice President
Date: November 13, 2006	By:   /s/Stephen B. Waters
	Stephen B. Waters
	Vice President

SHELTER PROPERTIES VI

EXHIBIT INDEX

Exhibit Number

Description of Exhibit

3

See Exhibit 4 (a)

4

(a)

Amended and Restated Certificate and Agreement of Limited Partnership (included as Exhibit A to the Prospectus of Registrant dated March 22, 1984 contained in Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement No. 2-86995, of Registrant filed March 21, 1984 (the “Prospectus”) and incorporated herein by reference.)

(b)

Subscription Agreement and Signature Page (included as Exhibits 4 (A) and 4 (B) 8 to the Prospectus and incorporated herein by reference).

10(iii)

Contracts related to refinancings of debt:

(g)

Multifamily Note dated December 15, 2000 between Shelter Properties VI and Reilly Mortgage Group, Inc., a District of Columbia corporation, securing Village Gardens Apartments filed as Exhibit 10(iii)(g) to the Partnership’s Current Report on Form 8-K Filed February 1, 2001 and incorporated herein by reference.

(h)

Multifamily Deed of Trust, Assignment of Rents, and Security Agreement dated December 15, 2000 between Shelter VI and Reilly Mortgage Group, Inc., a District of Columbia corporation, securing Village Gardens Apartments.  Filed as Exhibit 10(iii)(h) to the Partnership’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed February 1, 2001 and incorporated herein by reference.

10(iv)

Contracts related to disposition of properties:

(i)

Purchase and Sale Contract between Shelter VI Limited Partnership and Juniper Investment Group, Ltd., dated May 19, 2005, filed with the Partnership Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005 and incorporated herein by reference.

(j)

First Amendment to Purchase and Sale Contract – Carriage House Apartments, dated June 7, 2005, filed with the Partnership Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005 and incorporated herein by reference.

(k)

Second Amendment to Purchase and Sale Contract – Carriage House Apartments, dated July 7, 2005, filed with the Partnership Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005 and incorporated herein by reference.

(l)

Third Amendment to Purchase and Sale Contract – Carriage House Apartments, dated July 26, 2005, filed with the Partnership Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005 and incorporated herein by reference.

(m)

Purchase and Sale Contract between Shelter Properties VI, a South Carolina limited partnership, and Chartwell Augusta, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, dated October 20, 2005, incorporated by reference to the Partnership’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated October 20, 2005.

(n)

Reinstatement and First Amendment to Purchase and Sale Contract between Shelter Properties VI, a South Carolina limited partnership, and the affiliated Selling Partnerships and Chartwell Augusta, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, dated April 27, 2006, incorporated by reference to the Partnership’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated April 27, 2006.

31.1

Certification of equivalent of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Securities Exchange Act Rules 13a-14(a)/15d-4(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 Shelter Properties VI;

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: November 13, 2006

/s/Martha L. Long

Martha L. Long

Senior Vice President of Shelter Realty VI 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 Shelter Properties VI;

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: November 13, 2006

/s/Stephen B. Waters

Stephen B. Waters

Vice President of Shelter Realty VI 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 Shelter Properties VI Limited Partnership (the "Partnership"), for the quarterly period ended September 30, 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: November 13, 2006

      /s/Stephen B. Waters

Name: Stephen B. Waters

Date: November 13, 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.