FORM 10-QSB—QUARTERLY OR TRANSITIONAL REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF

10-Q 1 sp6308.htm 10Q FORM 10-QSB—QUARTERLY OR TRANSITIONAL REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

Form 10-Q

(Mark One)

[X]

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

For the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008

[ ]

TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from ________________ to ________________

Commission file number 0-13261

SHELTER PROPERTIES VI

(Exact name of registrant 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

(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 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. [X] Yes [ ] No

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer”, “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

Large accelerated filer [ ]

Accelerated filer [ ]

Non-accelerated filer [ ]

(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)

Smaller reporting company [X]

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

PART I – FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Item 1.

Financial Statements

SHELTER PROPERTIES VI

BALANCE SHEETS

(in thousands, except unit data)


	March 31,	December 31,
	2008	2007
	(Unaudited)	(Note)
Assets
Cash and cash equivalents	$ 23	$ 27
Receivables and deposits	76	41
Other assets	119	110
Investment property:
Land	420	420
Buildings and related personal property	5,453	5,399
	5,873	5,819
Less accumulated depreciation	(3,936)	(3,863)
	1,937	1,956
	$ 2,155	$ 2,134

Liabilities and Partners' Capital (Deficiency)
Liabilities
Accounts payable	$ 72	$ 116
Tenant security deposit liabilities	28	28
Accrued property taxes	39	56
Other liabilities	99	118
Due to affiliates (Note B)	571	408
Mortgage note payable	3,571	3,612
	4,380	4,338

Partners' Capital (Deficiency)
General partners	238	238
Limited partners (42,302 units issued and
outstanding)	(2,463)	(2,442)
	(2,225)	(2,204)
	$ 2,155	$ 2,134

Note:

The balance sheet at December 31, 2007 has been derived from the audited financial statements at that date but does not include all the information and footnotes required by generally accepted accounting principles for complete financial statements.

See Accompanying Notes to Financial Statements

SHELTER PROPERTIES VI

STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

(Unaudited)

(in thousands, except per unit data)


	Three Months Ended
	March 31,
	2008	2007
Revenues:
Rental income	$ 264	$ 243
Other income	88	41
Total revenues	352	284

Expenses:
Operating	184	175
General and administrative	29	31
Depreciation	73	58
Interest	76	69
Property taxes	11	12
Total expenses	373	345

Net loss	$ (21)	$ (61)

Net loss allocated to general partners (1%)	$ --	$ (1)
Net loss allocated to limited partners (99%)	(21)	(60)
	$ (21)	$ (61)

Net loss per limited partnership unit	$(0.50)	$(1.42)

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, 2007	42,302	$ 238	$(2,442)	$(2,204)

Net loss for the three months
ended March 31, 2008	--	--	(21)	(21)

Partners' capital (deficiency)
at March 31, 2008	42,302	$ 238	$(2,463)	$(2,225)

See Accompanying Notes to Financial Statements

SHELTER PROPERTIES VI

STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(Unaudited)

(in thousands)


	Three Months Ended
	March 31,
	2008	2007
Cash flows from operating activities:
Net loss	$ (21)	$ (61)
Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash (used in)
provided by operating activities:
Depreciation	73	58
Bad debt	9	7
Amortization of loan costs	1	1
Change in accounts:
Receivables and deposits	(44)	(7)
Other assets	(10)	(16)
Accounts payable	(17)	30
Tenant security deposit liabilities	--	1
Accrued property taxes	(17)	(15)
Other liabilities	(19)	(4)
Due to affiliates	25	14
Net cash (used in) provided by operating activities	(20)	8

Cash flows used in investing activities:
Property improvements and replacements	(81)	(51)

Cash flows from financing activities:
Payments on mortgage notes payable	(41)	(39)
Advances from affiliate	138	7
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities	97	(32)

Net decrease in cash and cash equivalents	(4)	(75)
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period	27	93
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period	$ 23	$ 18

Supplemental disclosure of cash flow information:
Cash paid for interest	$ 65	$ 68
Supplemental disclosure of non-cash activity:
Property improvements and replacements included in
accounts payable	$ 37	$ 6

Included in property improvements and replacements for the three months ended March 31, 2008 are approximately $64,000 of property improvements and replacements which were included in accounts payable at December 31, 2007.

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-Q and Article 8-03 of Regulation S-X. 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 of normal recurring accruals) considered necessary for a fair presentation have been included. Operating results for the three month period ended March 31, 2008 are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2008. 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, 2007.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements: In September 2006, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards ("SFAS") No. 157, “Fair Value Measurements”. SFAS No. 157 defines fair value as the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. SFAS No. 157 applies whenever other standards require assets or liabilities to be measured at fair value and does not expand the use of fair value in any new circumstances. SFAS No. 157 establishes a hierarchy that prioritizes the information used in developing fair value estimates. The hierarchy gives the highest priority to quoted prices in active markets and the lowest priority to unobservable data such as the reporting entity’s own data. SFAS No. 157 requires fair value measurements to be disclosed by level within the fair value hierarchy. In February 2008, the FASB issued FASB Staff Position No. FAS 157-2, “Effective Date of FASB Statement No. 157”, which deferred the effective date of SFAS No. 157 for all nonrecurring fair value measurements of non-financial assets and non-financial liabilities until fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2008. The provisions of SFAS No. 157 are applicable to recurring fair value measurements of financial assets and liabilities for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007, which for the Partnership is generally limited to annual disclosures required by SFAS No. 107. The Partnership adopted the provisions of SFAS No. 157 during the three months ended March 31, 2008, and at that time determined no transition adjustment was required.

Note B - 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 the Partnership's property as compensation for providing property management services. The Partnership paid to such affiliates approximately $15,000 and $14,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively, which are included in operating expenses.

Affiliates of the Corporate General Partner charged the Partnership for reimbursement of accountable administrative expenses amounting to approximately $22,000 and $20,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively, which are included in general and administrative expenses and investment property. The portion of these reimbursements included in investment property for the three months ended March 31, 2008 and 2007 are amounts related to construction management services provided by an affiliate of the Corporate General Partner of approximately $7,000 and $6,000, respectively. At March 31, 2008 and December 31, 2007, approximately $76,000 and $59,000, respectively, of accountable administrative expenses remain unpaid and are included in due to affiliates.

During the three months ended March 31, 2008 and 2007, AIMCO Properties, L.P., an affiliate of the Corporate General Partner advanced the Partnership approximately $138,000 and $7,000, respectively, to cover operating expenses at Village Gardens Apartments. Interest is charged at the prime rate plus 2% (7.25% at March 31, 2008) and was approximately $8,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2008 and less than $1,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2007. At March 31, 2008 and December 31, 2007, approximately $495,000 and $349,000, respectively, of advances and associated accrued interest remained unpaid and are included in due to affiliates. The Partnership may receive additional advances of funds from AIMCO Properties, L.P. although AIMCO Properties, L.P. is not obligated to provide such advances. For more information on AIMCO Properties, L.P., including copies of its audited balance sheet, please see its reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Subsequent to March 31, 2008, AIMCO Properties, L.P. advanced the Partnership approximately $43,000 to cover expenses related to operations at Village Gardens Apartments.

The Partnership insures its property 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 property above the AIMCO limits through insurance policies obtained by AIMCO from insurers unaffiliated with the Corporate General Partner. During the three months ended March 31, 2008, the Partnership was charged by AIMCO and its affiliates approximately $15,000 for hazard insurance coverage and fees associated with policy claims administration. Additional charges will be incurred by the Partnership during 2008 as other insurance policies renew later in the year. The Partnership was charged by AIMCO and its affiliates approximately $27,000 for insurance coverage and fees associated with policy claims administration during the year ended December 31, 2007.

Note C – 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 limited 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 matter was argued and submitted and the Court of Appeal issued an opinion on February 20, 2008 affirming the order approving the settlement and judgment entered thereto. On March 12, 2008, the Court of Appeal denied Appellant’s Petition for Re-Hearing. Appellant has filed a Petition for Review with the California Supreme Court. The matter has been submitted and the parties are awaiting a decision by the California Supreme Court regarding whether or not it will accept the matter for review.

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.

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 conjunction 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 policies, procedures, third-party audits and training and the Corporate General Partner believes that these measures will prevent or eliminate mold exposure and will minimize the effects that mold may 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 can 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 of Financial Condition and Results

of Operations

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 provides a “safe harbor” for forward-looking statements in certain circumstances. Certain information included in this Report contains or may contain information that is forward-looking, including, without limitation, statements regarding the effect of redevelopments, the Partnership’s future financial performance, including the Partnership’s ability to maintain current or meet projected occupancy and rent levels, and the effect of government regulations. Actual results may differ materially from those described in the forward-looking statements and, in addition, will be affected by a variety of risks and factors that are beyond the Partnership’s control including, without limitation: natural disasters such as hurricanes; national and local economic conditions; the general level of interest rates; energy costs; the terms of governmental regulations that affect the Partnership’s property and interpretations of those regulations; the competitive environment in which the Partnership operates; financing risks, including the risk that the Partnership’s cash flows from operations may be insufficient to meet required payments of principal and interest; real estate risks, including fluctuations in real estate values and the general economic climate in local markets and competition for tenants in such markets; insurance risks; development risks; litigation, including costs associated with prosecuting or defending claims and any adverse outcomes; and possible environmental liabilities, including costs, fines or penalties that may be incurred due to necessary remediation of contamination of properties presently owned or previously owned by the Partnership. Readers should carefully review the Partnership’s financial statements and the notes thereto, as well as the risk factors described in the documents the Partnership 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 three months ended March 31, 2008 and 2007:


	Average
	Occupancy
Property	2008	2007

Village Gardens Apartments
Fort Collins, Colorado	97%	96%

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 guarantee 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 a net loss of approximately $21,000 and $61,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively. The decrease in net loss is due to an increase in total revenues, partially offset by an increase in total expenses. The increase in total revenues for the three months ended March 31, 2008 is due to increases in both rental and other income. Rental income increased due to increases in occupancy and the average rental rate partially offset by an increase in bad debt expense at Village Gardens Apartments. The increase in other income is primarily due to an increase in tenant utility reimbursements at Village Gardens Apartments.

Total expenses increased for the three months ended March 31, 2008 due to increases in operating, depreciation and interest expenses. Property tax expense and general and administrative expense remained relatively constant for the comparable periods. The increase in operating expenses is primarily due to increases in maintenance, management fees, property and administrative expenses. Maintenance expense increased primarily due to an increase in contract service costs at Village Gardens Apartments. Management fees increased due to an increase in rental income on which such fee is based. Property expense increased due to an increase in leasing commissions and incentives partially offset by a decrease in utility costs. Administrative expense increased primarily due to increased professional fees and office supplies at Village Garden Apartments. The increase in depreciation expense is due to property improvements and replacements placed into service at the property during the past twelve months. Interest expense increased due to an increase in interest expense on advances from AIMCO Properties, L.P., an affiliate of the Corporate General Partner, as a result of an increase in advances received partially offset by a decrease in interest expense due to principal payments on the mortgage encumbering the Partnership’s investment property.

Included in general and administrative expense for the three months ended March 31, 2008 and 2007 are management reimbursements to the Corporate General Partner as allowed under the Partnership Agreement. Also included in general and administrative expense are costs associated with the quarterly and annual communications with investors and regulatory agencies and the annual audit required by the Partnership Agreement.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

At March 31, 2008 the Partnership had cash and cash equivalents of approximately $23,000, compared to approximately $18,000 at March 31, 2007. Cash and cash equivalents decreased approximately $4,000, from December 31, 2007, due to approximately $81,000 and $20,000 of cash used in investing and operating activities, respectively, partially offset by approximately $97,000 of cash provided by financing activities. Cash used in investing activities consisted of property improvements and replacements. Cash provided by financing activities consisted of advances received from AIMCO Properties, L.P., an affiliate of the Corporate General Partner, partially offset by payments of principal made on the mortgage encumbering the Partnership’s investment property. 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. Capital improvements planned for the Partnership's property are detailed below.

During the three months ended March 31, 2008, the Partnership completed approximately $54,000 of capital improvements at Village Gardens Apartments, consisting primarily of water heater, appliance, and floor covering replacements. 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 2008. 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 advances from AIMCO Properties, L.P., an affiliate of the Corporate General Partner, although AIMCO Properties, L.P. is not obligated to fund such advances. 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 generally sufficient for any near term needs (exclusive of capital improvements and repayment of amounts due to affiliates) of the Partnership. The mortgage indebtedness encumbering Village Gardens Apartments of approximately $3,571,000 matures in January 2021, at which time the mortgage is scheduled to be fully amortized.

There were no distributions made to the partners during the three months ended March 31, 2008 and 2007. 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 any distributions to its partners during the remainder of 2008 or subsequent periods.

The Partnership Agreement provides for partners to receive distributions from the net proceeds of the sales of properties, the net proceeds from refinancings and net cash from operations as those terms are defined in the Partnership Agreement. The Partnership Agreement requires that the limited partners be furnished with a statement of Net Cash from Operations as such term is defined in the Partnership Agreement. Net Cash from Operations should not be considered an alternative to net (loss) income as an indicator of the Partnership's operating performance or to cash flows as a measure of liquidity. Below is a reconciliation of net cash (used in) provided by operating activities as disclosed in the statements of cash flows included in “Item 1. Financial Statements” to Net Cash from Operations as defined in the Partnership Agreement.


	Three months ended
	March 31,
	2008	2007
	(in thousands)
Net cash (used in) provided by operating activities	$ (20)	$ 8
Payments on mortgage notes payable	(41)	(39)
Property improvements and replacements	(81)	(51)
Changes in reserves for net operating
liabilities	82	(3)
Net cash used in operations	$ (60)	$ (85)

Other

In addition to its indirect ownership of the general partner interests in the Partnership, AIMCO and its affiliates owned 28,440 Units in the Partnership representing 67.23% of the outstanding Units at March 31, 2008. 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 67.23% of the outstanding Units, AIMCO and its affiliates are in a position to control all 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 stockholder. As a result, the duties of the Corporate General Partner, as corporate 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 4.

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 controls and procedures are effective.

(b)

Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting.

There have been no significant changes in the Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting (as 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 limited 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 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.

Item 5.

Other Information

None.

Item 6.

Exhibits

See Exhibit Index.

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly 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: May 14, 2008	By: /s/Martha L. Long
	Martha L. Long
	Senior Vice President

Date: May 14, 2008	By: /s/Stephen B. Waters
	Stephen B. Waters
	Vice President

SHELTER PROPERTIES VI

EXHIBIT INDEX

Exhibit

Description of Exhibit

See Exhibit 4 (a)

(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 refinancing 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.

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.