<PAGE>
                                  UNITED STATES
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

                                    FORM 10-K405

[x]  ANNUAL REPORT  PURSUANT  TO  SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE
     ACT OF 1934

     For the fiscal year ended   December 31, 1995
                               -------------------------------------------------

                                       OR

[ ]  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  0-9026
                           ---------

                        McNEIL REAL ESTATE FUND IX, LTD.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)


         California                                  94-2491437
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(State or other jurisdiction of                     (I.R.S. Employer
incorporation or organization)                       Identification No.)

             13760 Noel Road, Suite 700, LB70, Dallas, Texas, 75240
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             (Address of principal executive offices)       (Zip code)

Registrant's telephone number, including area code    (214)  448-5800
                                                   -----------------------------

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: None
----------------------------------------------------------

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: Limited partnership
                                                            units
----------------------------------------------------------

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,  and (2) has been subject to such filing  requirements
for the past 90 days. Yes X No
                         ---  ---

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent  filers  pursuant to Item 405
of Regulation  S-K is not contained  herein,  and will not be contained,  to the
best of registrant's  knowledge,  in definitive proxy or information  statements
incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this
Form 10-K. [ X ]

104,455  of the  registrant's  110,170  limited  partnership  units  are held by
non-affiliates  of this registrant.  The aggregate market value of units held by
non-affiliates  is not determinable  since there is no public trading market for
limited  partnership  units  and  transfers  of units  are  subject  to  certain
restrictions.

Documents Incorporated by Reference:        See Item 14, Page 42

                                TOTAL OF 47 PAGES
<PAGE>
                                     PART I


ITEM 1.   BUSINESS
-------   --------

ORGANIZATION
------------

McNeil Real Estate Fund IX, Ltd., (the "Partnership") was organized May 1, 1978,
as a limited  partnership  under  provisions of the California  Uniform  Limited
Partnership  Act. The general partner of the Partnership is McNeil Partners L.P.
(the "General Partner"), a Delaware limited partnership,  an affiliate of Robert
A. McNeil  ("McNeil").  The  Partnership  is governed by an amended and restated
partnership agreement of limited partnership dated November 12, 1991, as amended
(the  "Amended  Partnership  Agreement").  Prior to November 12,  1991,  Pacific
Investors  Corporation (the prior "Corporate General  Partner"),  a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Southmark Corporation  ("Southmark"),  and McNeil were the general
partners  of the  Partnership,  which was  governed by an  agreement  of limited
partnership  dated May 1,  1978  (the  "Original  Partnership  Agreement").  The
principal place of business for the Partnership and the General Partner is 13760
Noel Road, Suite 700, LB70, Dallas, Texas, 75240.

On  January  10,  1979,  a  Registration  Statement  on Form  S-11 was  declared
effective by the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  whereby the  Partnership
offered for sale $55,000,000 of limited  partnership units ("Units").  The Units
represent equity interests in the Partnership and entitle the holders thereof to
participate in certain  allocations and  distributions of the  Partnership.  The
sale of Units closed on September 7, 1979, with 110,000 Units sold at $500 each,
or gross proceeds of $55,000,000 to the Partnership.  In addition,  the original
general  partners  purchased an additional  200 Units for $100,000.  In 1993, 30
Units were relinquished leaving 110,170 Units outstanding at December 31, 1995.

SOUTHMARK BANKRUPTCY AND ASSET PURCHASE AGREEMENT
-------------------------------------------------

On July 14, 1989,  Southmark filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under
Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Neither the Partnership,  McNeil nor the
Corporate   General   Partner   were   included  in  the   filing.   Southmark's
reorganization  plan became  effective  August 10, 1990. Under the plan, most of
Southmark's  assets,  which  included  Southmark's  interests  in the  Corporate
General Partner, are being sold or liquidated for the benefit of creditors.

In  accordance  with  Southmark's  reorganization  plan,  Southmark,  McNeil and
various of their affiliates  entered into an asset purchase agreement on October
12, 1990 providing for, among other things, the transfer of control to McNeil or
his affiliates of 34 limited  partnerships  (including the  Partnership)  in the
Southmark portfolio.

On February 14,  1991,  pursuant to the asset  purchase  agreement as amended on
that date: (a) an affiliate of McNeil purchased the Corporate  General Partner's
economic  interest in the  Partnership;  (b) McNeil became the managing  general
partner of the Partnership  pursuant to an agreement with the Corporate  General
Partner  that  delegated  management  authority  to McNeil;  and (c) McNeil Real
Estate Management,  Inc. ("McREMI"), an affiliate of McNeil, acquired the assets
relating to the property management and partnership  administrative  business of
Southmark  and its  affiliates  and commenced  management  of the  Partnership's
properties  pursuant  to an  assignment  of  the  existing  property  management
agreements from the Southmark affiliates.

<PAGE>

On November 12, 1991, the limited  partners  approved a  restructuring  proposal
that  provided for (i) the  replacement  of the  Corporate  General  Partner and
McNeil with the General  Partner;  (ii) the adoption of the Amended  Partnership
Agreement, which substantially alters the provisions of the Original Partnership
Agreement  relating  to,  among other  things,  compensation,  reimbursement  of
expenses, and voting rights; and (iii) the approval of a new property management
agreement with McREMI, the Partnership's property manager.

The  Amended   Partnership   Agreement  provides  for  a  Management   Incentive
Distribution  ("MID") to replace all other forms of general partner compensation
other  than  property  management  fees and  reimbursements  of  certain  costs.
Additional  Units  may be  issued  in  connection  with the  payment  of the MID
pursuant  to  the  Amended  Partnership  Agreement.  See  Item  8  -  Note  2  -
"Transactions  with  Affiliates."  For  a  discussion  of  the  methodology  for
calculating  and  distributing  MID,  see Item 13 -  Certain  Relationships  and
Related Transactions.

Settlement of Claims:

The  Partnership  filed claims with the United States  Bankruptcy  Court for the
Northern  District of Texas,  Dallas Division (the  "Bankruptcy  Court") against
Southmark for damages relating to improper  overcharges,  breach of contract and
breach of fiduciary duty. The Partnership settled these claims in 1991, and such
settlement was approved by the Bankruptcy Court.

An Order Granting  Motion to Distribute  Funds to Class 8 Claimants  dated April
14, 1995 was issued by the Bankruptcy  Court.  In accordance  with the Order, in
May 1995, the Partnership  received in full satisfaction of its claims,  $53,573
in cash, and common and preferred stock in the reorganized  Southmark.  The cash
and  stock  represent  the  Partnership's  pro-rata  share of  Southmark  assets
available for Class 8 claimants.  The Partnership  sold the Southmark common and
preferred  stock in May 1995 for  $17,244  which,  when  combined  with the cash
proceeds  from  Southmark,  resulted in a gain on  settlement  of  litigation of
$70,817.

CURRENT OPERATIONS
------------------

General:

The Partnership is engaged in real estate  activities,  including the ownership,
operation  and  management  of  residential  real  estate and other real  estate
related  assets.   At  December  31,  1995,  the   Partnership   owned  fourteen
income-producing properties as described in Item 2 - Properties.

The  Partnership  does not directly  employ any personnel.  The General  Partner
conducts the business of the  Partnership  directly and through its  affiliates.
The  Partnership  is  managed  by  the  General  Partner.  The  Partnership  has
reimbursed  affiliates of the General Partner for certain  expenses  incurred by
the affiliates in connection with the management of the Partnership.  See Item 8
- Note 2 - "Transactions With Affiliates."

The business of the Partnership to date has involved only one industry  segment.
See Item 8 - Financial Statements and Supplementary Data. The Partnership has no
foreign operations. The business of the Partnership is not seasonal.


<PAGE>

Business Plan:

The  Partnership's  anticipated  plan of  operations  for 1996 is to preserve or
increase the net operating income of its properties whenever possible,  while at
the same time making  whatever  capital  expenditures  are reasonable  under the
circumstances  in order to preserve  and enhance the value of the  Partnership's
properties.  The  General  Partner  is  evaluating  market  and  other  economic
conditions to determine the optimum time to commence an orderly  liquidation  of
the  Partnership's  properties  in  accordance  with the  terms  of the  Amended
Partnership  Agreement.  In  conjunction  therewith,  the General  Partner  will
continue  to  explore  potential  avenues to  enhance  the value of the  limited
partners'  Units,  which  may  include,  among  other  things,  asset  sales  or
refinancings of the Partnership's properties followed by distributions. See Item
7 - Management's  Discussion and Analysis of Financial  Condition and Results of
Operations.

Competitive Conditions:

Since the  principal  business of the  Partnership  is to own and  operate  real
estate,  the Partnership is subject to all of the risks incident to ownership of
real estate and interests  therein,  many of which relate to the  illiquidity of
this type of  investment.  These  risks  include  changes  in  general  or local
economic conditions,  changes in supply or demand for competing properties in an
area,  changes in interest rates and  availability  of permanent  mortgage funds
which  may  render  the  sale  or  refinancing   of  a  property   difficult  or
unattractive, changes in real estate and zoning laws, increases in real property
tax rates and Federal or local  economic or rent  controls.  The  illiquidity of
real estate  investments  generally  impairs the ability of the  Partnership  to
respond  promptly  to  changed  circumstances.  The  Partnership  competes  with
numerous established companies, private investors (including foreign investors),
real estate investment trusts,  limited partnerships and other entities (many of
which have greater  resources than the Partnership) in connection with the sale,
financing  and  leasing  of  properties.  The  impact  of  these  risks  on  the
Partnership,   including   losses  from  operations  and   foreclosures  of  the
Partnership's  properties,  is described in Item 7 - Management's Discussion and
Analysis  of  Financial  Condition  and  Results  of  Operations.  See  Item 2 -
Properties  for  discussion  of  competitive  conditions  at  the  Partnership's
properties.

Other information:

The environmental  laws of the Federal government and of certain state and local
governments  impose  liability  on current  property  owners for the clean-up of
hazardous and toxic substances discharged on the property. This liability may be
imposed  without  regard  to the  timing,  cause or person  responsible  for the
release of such substances onto the property.  The Partnership  could be subject
to such liability in the event that it owns properties having such environmental
problems.  The Partnership has no knowledge of any pending claims or proceedings
regarding such environmental problems.

In August 1995, High River Limited  Partnership,  a Delaware limited partnership
controlled by Carl C. Icahn ("High River") made an unsolicited tender offer (the
"HR Offer") to purchase  from  holders of Units up to  approximately  45% of the
outstanding  Units of the  Partnership for a purchase price of $143 per Unit. In
addition,   High  River  made  unsolicited   tender  offers  for  certain  other
partnerships controlled by the General Partner. The Partnership recommended that
the limited  partners  reject the HR Offer made with respect to the  Partnership
and not tender their Units  pursuant to the HR Offer.  The HR Offer  terminated,
after numerous extensions, on October 6, 1995. The General Partner believes that
as of February 29, 1996,  High River has  purchased  approximately  7.23% of the
outstanding Units pursuant to the HR Offer. In addition, all litigation filed by
High River,  Mr. Icahn and his  affiliates in  connection  with the HR Offer has
been dismissed without prejudice.


<PAGE>

ITEM 2.   PROPERTIES
-------   ----------

The  following  table sets forth the real  estate  investment  portfolio  of the
Partnership  at December 31, 1995.  The buildings and the land on which they are
located  are owned by the  Partnership  in fee,  subject  in each case (with the
exception of Westridge,  which is  unencumbered by mortgage  indebtedness)  to a
first lien deed of trust as set forth more fully in Item 8 - Note 5 -  "Mortgage
Notes  Payable."  See  also  Item 8 - Note 4 -  "Real  Estate  Investments"  and
Schedule III - "Real Estate  Investments and Accumulated  Depreciation."  In the
opinion of management, the properties are adequately covered by insurance.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                             Net Basis                               1995              Date
Property              Description           of Property          Debt             Property Tax      Acquired
--------              -----------          ---------------   --------------    ---------------      --------
<S>                   <C>                  <C>               <C>               <C>                     <C> 
Berkley Hills (1)     Apartments
Madison, TN           251 units            $     2,517,754   $    3,255,924    $      66,132           6/79

Cherry Hills (2)      Apartments
Wichita, KS           348 units                  4,624,405        4,634,041           80,477           6/80

Forest Park
  Village (3)         Apartments
Columbus, OH          376 units                  4,056,519        6,192,845          182,342           12/79

Heather Square        Apartments
Dallas, TX            288 units                  4,235,681        3,429,615          153,017           10/79

Lantern Tree (4)      Apartments
Omaha, NE             110 units                  1,523,877        2,404,122           63,486           7/79

Meridian West (5)     Apartments
Puyallup, WA          181 units                  2,553,373        3,352,624           85,691           1/80

Pennbrook (6)         Apartments
Dallas, TX            216 units                  3,447,954        3,187,297          148,613           1/80

Rockborough (7)       Apartments
Addison, TX           136 units                  2,156,550        2,212,544           67,906           1/80

Rolling Hills (8)     Apartments
Louisville, KY        400 units                  4,100,405        6,685,297           80,137           9/79

Ruskin Place (9)      Apartments
Lincoln, NE           270 units                  2,911,102        4,581,309          165,054           12/79

Sheraton Hills        Apartments
Nashville, TN         272 units                  2,597,459        2,838,674           88,191           6/79
</TABLE>


<PAGE>

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                             Net Basis                               1995              Date
Property              Description           of Property          Debt             Property Tax      Acquired
--------              -----------          ---------------   --------------    ---------------      --------
<S>                   <C>                  <C>               <C>               <C>                     <C> 
Westgate (10)         Apartments
Lansing, MI           264 units            $     2,956,800   $    5,893,110    $     145,457           12/79

Westridge             Apartments
Ft. Worth, TX         176 units                  2,311,872                -           50,667           1/80

Williamsburg (11)     Apartments
Shreveport, LA        194 units                  2,440,411        2,723,420           59,283           12/79
                                            --------------    -------------     ------------

                                           $    42,434,162   $   51,390,822    $   1,436,453
                                            ==============    =============     ============
</TABLE>

-----------------------------------------
Total:    Apartments  -  3,482 units

(1)  Berkley  Hills  Apartments is owned by Berkley  Hills  Associates  which is
     wholly-owned by the Partnership and the General Partner.

(2)  Cherry  Hills   Apartments  is  owned  by  Cherry  Hills  Fund  IX  Limited
     Partnership which is wholly-owned by the Partnership.

(3)  Forest Park Village  Apartments  is owned by Forest Park Fund IX Associates
     Limited  Partnership  which  is  wholly-owned  by the  Partnership  and the
     General Partner.

(4)  Lantern  Tree   Apartments  is  owned  by  Lantern  Tree  Fund  IX  Limited
     Partnership which is wholly-owned by the Partnership.

(5)  Meridian  West  Apartments  is  owned  by  Meridian  West  Fund IX  Limited
     Partnership which is wholly-owned by the Partnership.

(6)  Pennbrook  Apartments is owned by Pennbrook Fund IX Associates,  L.P. which
     is wholly-owned by the Partnership and the General Partner.

(7)  Rockborough  Apartments is owned by Rockborough Fund IX Limited Partnership
     which is wholly-owned by the Partnership.

(8)  Rolling Hills  Apartments is owned by Rolling Hills Fund IX Associates L.P.
     which is wholly-owned by the Partnership and the General Partner.

(9)  Ruskin Place  Apartments is owned by Ruskin Place Fund IX Associates  which
     is wholly-owned by the Partnership and the General Partner.

(10) Westgate Apartments (formerly known as Sherwood Forest Apartments) is owned
     by  Sherwood  Forest  Fund  IX  Associates  which  is  wholly-owned  by the
     Partnership and the General Partner.

(11) Williamsburg   Apartments  is  owned  by   Williamsburg   Fund  IX  Limited
     Partnership which is wholly-owned by the Partnership.

<PAGE>

The  following  table sets  forth the  properties'  occupancy  rate and rent per
square foot for each of the last five years:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                        1995           1994            1993           1992           1991
                                    -------------  -------------  --------------  -------------  -----------
<S>                                       <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>             <C>
Berkley Hills
   Occupancy Rate............             98%            98%            98%            94%             87%
   Rent Per Square Foot......           $5.69          $5.35          $4.87          $4.48           $4.39

Cherry Hills
   Occupancy Rate............             89%            89%            81%            85%             92%
   Rent Per Square Foot......           $5.75          $5.80          $5.05          $5.15           $4.90

Forest Park Village
   Occupancy Rate............             85%            92%            91%            91%             92%
   Rent Per Square Foot......           $5.80          $5.57          $5.51          $5.38           $5.22

Heather Square
   Occupancy Rate............             99%            99%            97%            93%             93%
   Rent Per Square Foot......           $7.00          $6.61          $6.20          $5.75           $5.58

Lantern Tree
   Occupancy Rate............             99%            99%            96%            97%             96%
   Rent Per Square Foot......           $7.58          $7.07          $6.83          $6.41           $6.02

Meridian West
   Occupancy Rate............             93%            90%            92%            95%             96%
   Rent Per Square Foot......           $7.18          $6.99          $7.35          $7.11           $6.89

Pennbrook
   Occupancy Rate............             98%            94%            97%            95%             87%
   Rent Per Square Foot......           $7.62          $7.23          $7.03          $6.62           $6.05

</TABLE>


<PAGE>

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                        1995           1994            1993           1992           1991
                                    -------------  -------------  --------------  -------------  ------------
<S>                                       <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>             <C>
Rockborough
   Occupancy Rate............             97%            99%            96%            93%             93%
   Rent Per Square Foot......           $7.80          $7.40          $7.00          $6.67           $6.25

Rolling Hills
   Occupancy Rate............             94%            97%            90%            91%             93%
   Rent Per Square Foot......           $4.66          $4.33          $3.95          $3.79           $3.69

Ruskin Place
   Occupancy Rate............             97%            96%            97%            96%             95%
   Rent Per Square Foot......           $6.78          $6.47          $6.26          $6.10           $5.68

Sheraton Hills
   Occupancy Rate............             98%            97%            98%            94%             92%
   Rent Per Square Foot......           $5.53          $5.14          $4.85          $4.37           $4.25

Westgate
   Occupancy Rate............             86%            92%            94%            94%             93%
   Rent Per Square Foot......           $6.66          $6.51          $6.15          $6.11           $5.91

Westridge
   Occupancy Rate............             89%            96%            86%            92%             91%
   Rent Per Square Foot......           $4.80          $4.64          $4.43          $4.48           $4.26

Williamsburg
   Occupancy Rate............             95%            99%            97%            95%             91%
   Rent Per Square Foot......           $6.22          $5.86          $5.41          $4.98           $4.74

</TABLE>

Occupancy rate  represents all units leased divided by the total number of units
of the  property  as of  December  31 of the given  year.  Rent per square  foot
represents all revenue,  except  interest,  derived from the property divided by
the leasable square footage of the property.

Competitive Conditions at Properties
------------------------------------

A strong local economy has  benefited  Berkley  Hills  Apartments.  The property
increased rental rates 6% over 1994 levels,  in line with averages for the local
area.   Occupancy   rates,   too,  have  been  comparable  with  the  property's
competition.  Capital improvements at Berkley Hills have allowed the property to
remain competitive with nearby apartment communities.  The strong local economy,
and the high occupancy rates are prompting new  construction in the area; but to
date, the new construction has not been located near Berkley Hills, and has been
targeted to upscale  single  residents  while Berkley Hills targets middle class
families and singles.

Cherry Hills Apartments is one of Wichita's finer apartment communities in terms
of interior and exterior  appearance.  The well-maintained  property's occupancy
rate is several  points  above the average  occupancy  rate of its  competitors.
Rental rates,  also,  have  typically  been higher than the rates charged by the
property's  competitors.  The Wichita area, however, has been a difficult market
for apartment  communities.  Nearby McConnell Air Force Base has constructed new
housing  facilities for military  personnel,  upon which Cherry Hills relies for
many of its tenants.  Cuts in military  spending may also impact  McConnell  Air
Force Base and thereby impact Cherry Hills.

<PAGE>

Forest Park Village  Apartments is currently in the midst of a four-year capital
improvement  program.  Exterior  renovations are largely complete,  and interior
upgrades are in process.  The capital program is needed to allow the property to
compete with numerous  other  apartment  communities  in the Northeast  Columbus
submarket.  Forest Park Village  represents a common  property in the submarket,
with no  distinguishing  characteristics  other than basements in all its units.
The submarket is very  competitive,  and many of the competing  properties  have
been renovated in the past few years. The capital program will allow Forest Park
Village to maintain its competitiveness.

Occupancy  rates at Heather  Square  Apartments  typically run 2 or 3 percentage
points above the market due to the excellent  curb appeal of the  property.  The
property also is able to command rental rates  slightly  higher than most of its
competition.  Competition is mixed in the Dallas  submarket where Heather Square
is located.  As long as the local economy remains strong, it is anticipated that
the property  will do well in  competition  with both older  properties  and new
construction under development. Annual absorption of apartment units has roughly
equaled newly constructed units the past two years.

Lantern Tree  Apartments has  maintained  occupancy and rental rates higher than
its  competition  due to spacious and attractive  floor plans.  The average area
occupancy rate is 95%, but Lantern Tree usually exceeds that level. Depending on
the size of the unit,  rent per square foot at Lantern Tree  averages 13% to 30%
higher than its competition.  The property appeals to single, upper-middle class
residents.  The  principal  competitive  disadvantage  of  the  property  is its
location  that is set back  from the main  thoroughfare  reducing  its  drive-by
visibility.

The economy in Meridian West Apartments'  submarket has improved during the past
year. The area's major employer, Boeing, has increased its activity in the area.
As a result, rental and occupancy rates in the area are on the upswing. Meridian
West's  occupancy rate improved in 1995 over 1994.  Management plans to increase
rental rates and eliminate  discounts in 1996.  Meridian West competes primarily
with better quality apartment  communities,  and thus the Partnership  generally
expects  rental and  occupancy  rates  lower than local  market  rates.  Capital
improvements  placed in service  during 1995 and 1994 were critical to allow the
property to compete effectively with its better-quality competition.

Occupancy rates at Pennbrook  Apartments are in-line with the 95% average of the
submarket where the property is located.  Extensive capital  improvements during
1991-1993  have   positioned  the  property  to  compete   effectively  for  the
middle-class,  single residents that dominate its resident  profile.  The Dallas
market is  expected  to remain  strong.  For the past two years,  new  apartment
construction  has roughly  equaled the number of apartment units absorbed by the
market.  Absorption  is expected to lag  construction  in 1996,  but the surplus
units will likely be limited to newer,  high-quality  apartment  properties  and
should have little effect on Pennbrook.

Rockborough  Apartments  boasts  excellent  curb  appeal,  which has enabled the
property to maintain  occupancy  levels a few  percentage  points  above the 94%
market  average.   Rockborough  compares  well  to  the  established   apartment
communities  in the area. New  construction  is going in the area, but at rental
rates  substantially  higher than the rates charged at  Rockborough.  The Dallas
area  economy is  expected  to remain  strong.  New  apartment  construction  is
expected to exceed  absorption  in 1996,  but the  surplus  units will likely be
limited to newer,  high-quality  apartment  properties  and should  have  little
effect on Rockborough.

<PAGE>

The area  surrounding  Rolling Hills  Apartments is experiencing  strong growth.
Capital  improvements  at  Rolling  Hills the past two years have  upgraded  the
property to compete more effectively with the high-quality apartment communities
in the immediate area. Rolling Hills offers the largest floor plans in the area.
The interiors of the units are dated,  necessitating scheduled 1996 improvements
to unit  interiors.  Occupancy rates are comparable to the market's 96% average,
but  average  rental  rates are lower than the market.  Rolling  Hills is a good
quality property competing against even-better quality properties.

Ruskin Place  Apartments  has steadily  improved its  performance  over the past
several years despite competitive pressures from newer apartment properties. The
newer properties,  and new construction in progress, have put upward pressure on
local rental rates.  Ruskin Place Apartments has been able to offer its units at
lower,  but still rising rental rates.  This trend is expected to continue given
the population increases and stable economic conditions in the local area.

The Nashville  economy is expected to remain strong through 1997, and developers
are planning new apartment  projects in the area of Sheraton  Hills  Apartments.
Older  properties,  such as Sheraton  Hills,  have been able to increase  rental
rates an  average  of 6% to 7% since  1993.  Although  Sheraton  Hills  will not
compete directly with the new  construction,  the new construction  will tend to
slow the  increases in rental rates that older  properties  may expect in coming
years.  The capital  improvements  placed in service at Sheraton  Hills over the
past  two  years  allow  the  property  to  compete  effectively  against  older
properties in the area.

Westgate  Apartments  is in need of extensive  capital  improvements  to compete
effectively with other area apartment properties.  The exterior and interiors of
the units  are  dated and  unattractive.  Occupancy  rates  are  averaging  four
percentage  points below  competing  properties,  and rental rates are averaging
approximately  85% of the average rental rates charged by competing  properties.
Nine percent of Westgate's  units are three and four bedroom floor plans,  which
are the only  three and four  bedroom  units in the area.  The local  economy is
doing  very  well,  with  unemployment  at 2.8%.  The  property  also has a good
location in a desirable school district.

The economy of the Fort Worth sub-market  where Westridge  Apartments is located
remains weak due to the closing of nearby Carswell Air Force Base and layoffs at
Lockheed.  Weakness in the area  economy has  prevented  any  meaningful  rental
increases  since  1990.  Westridge  is well  maintained  and  offers  attractive
floorplans.  The  occupancy  rate has averaged 5 percentage  points  higher than
competitive properties in the area.

The  physical  condition of  Williamsburg  Apartments  is good,  with only minor
capital  improvements  needed.  The property offers  attractive floor plans with
interiors that are being upgraded with new fixtures.  The Shreveport  market has
experienced modest  improvement over the past three years.  Nearby Barksdale Air
Force Base and a growing gambling  industry provide the employment base for many
of the property's  tenants.  The occupancy rate at Williamsburg  usually exceeds
market  occupancy  rates by two  percentage  points  due to its  excellent  curb
appeal. New apartment developments within a mile of the property are a concern.

<PAGE>

ITEM 3.   LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
-------   -----------------

The Partnership is not party to, nor are any of the Partnership's properties the
subject of, any material pending legal proceedings, other than ordinary, routine
litigation incidental to the Partnership's business, except for the following:

1)   High River Limited Partnership v. McNeil Partners,  L.P., McNeil Investors,
     Inc., McNeil Pacific Investors 1972, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund V, Ltd.,
     McNeil Real Estate Fund IX, Ltd.,  McNeil Real Estate Fund X, Ltd.,  McNeil
     Real Estate Fund XI, Ltd.,  McNeil Real Estate Fund XIV, Ltd.,  McNeil Real
     Estate Fund XV, Ltd.,  McNeil Real Estate Fund XX, L.P., McNeil Real Estate
     Fund XXIV,  L.P.,  McNeil Real Estate Fund XXV, L.P.,  Robert A. McNeil and
     Carole J.  McNeil  (L95012) - High River  ("HR")  filed this  action in the
     United States District Court for the Southern  District of New York against
     McNeil Partners,  L.P., McNeil Investors,  Inc. and Mr. and Mrs. McNeil (as
     defined in this  Section 1,  collectively,  the  "Defendants")  requesting,
     among other  things,  names and  addresses  of the limited  partners in the
     partnerships   referenced   above  (as  defined  in  this  Section  1,  the
     "Partnerships"). The District Court issued a preliminary injunction against
     the Partnerships  requiring them to commence mailing materials  relating to
     the HR tender offer on August 14, 1995.

     On August 18, 1995, the Defendants  filed an Answer and  Counterclaim.  The
     Counterclaim  principally  asserts  (1)  the HR  tender  offers  have  been
     undertaken  in violation of the federal  securities  laws,  on the basis of
     material,  non-public,  and confidential  information,  and (2) that the HR
     offer documents omit and/or misrepresent certain material information about
     the HR tender offers.  The  Counterclaim  seeks a preliminary and permanent
     injunction   against  the   continuation  of  the  HR  tender  offers  and,
     alternatively,  ordering  corrective  disclosure  with respect to allegedly
     false and misleading statements contained in the tender offer documents.

     This action was dismissed without prejudice in November 1995.

2)   High River Limited Partnership v. McNeil Partners,  L.P., McNeil Investors,
     Inc., McNeil Pacific Investors 1972, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund V, Ltd.,
     McNeil Real Estate Fund IX, Ltd.,  McNeil Real Estate Fund X, Ltd.,  McNeil
     Real Estate Fund XI, Ltd.,  McNeil Real Estate Fund XIV, Ltd.,  McNeil Real
     Estate Fund XV, Ltd.,  McNeil Real Estate Fund XX, L.P., McNeil Real Estate
     Fund XXIV,  L.P.,  McNeil Real Estate Fund XXV, L.P.,  Robert A. McNeil and
     Carole J. McNeil - United States  District Court for the Southern  District
     of New York, (Case No. 95 Civ. 9488) (Second Action).

     On November 7, 1995, High River filed a second  complaint with the District
     Court which alleges, inter alia, that McNeil Partners, L.P.'s (the "General
     Partner")  Schedule  14D-9 filed in  connection  with the High River tender
     offers was materially false and misleading,  in violation of Sections 14(d)
     and 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C.  Section 78n(d)
     and (e),  and the SEC  Regulations  promulgated  thereunder;  and that High
     River further  alleges that the General  Partner has wrongfully  refused to
     admit High River as a limited  partner to the ten  partnerships  referenced
     above.  Additionally,  High River purports to assert claims derivatively on
     behalf of McNeil  Real Estate  Fund IX,  Ltd.,  McNeil Real Estate Fund XI,
     Ltd.,  McNeil Real Estate Fund XV, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XXIV, L.P.
     and McNeil Real Estate Fund XXV, L.P., for breach of contract and breach of
     fiduciary  duty,  asserting  that the General  Partner  has  charged  these
     partnerships  excessive fees.  High River's  complaint  seeks,  inter alia,

<PAGE>

     preliminary  injunctive  relief requiring the General Partner to admit High
     River as a limited partner in each of the ten partnerships referenced above
     and to transfer the tendered units of interest in the  partnerships to High
     River;  an  unspecified  award of  damages  payable  to High  River  and an
     additional   unspecified  award  of  damages  payable  to  certain  of  the
     partnerships;  an order that  defendants  must  discharge  their  fiduciary
     duties and must account for all fees they have received from certain of the
     partnerships; and attorneys' fees.

     On January 31, 1996, this action was dismissed without prejudice.

3)   Robert Lewis v. McNeil Partners,  L.P., McNeil  Investors,  Inc., Robert A.
     McNeil  et al - In the  District  Court of  Dallas  County,  Texas,  A-14th
     Judicial  District,  Cause No. 95-08535 (Class Action) - Plaintiff,  Robert
     Lewis, is a limited partner with McNeil Pacific  Investors Fund 1972, Ltd.,
     McNeil Real Estate Fund X, Ltd. and McNeil Real Estate Fund XV, Ltd.

     Plaintiff  brings  this  action on his own behalf and as a class  action on
     behalf of the class of all  limited  partners of McNeil  Pacific  Investors
     Fund 1972, Ltd.,  McNeil Real Estate Fund V, Ltd.,  McNeil Real Estate Fund
     IX,  Ltd.,  McNeil Real  Estate  Fund X, Ltd.,  McNeil Real Estate Fund XI,
     Ltd.,  McNeil Real Estate Fund XIV, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XV, Ltd.,
     McNeil Real Estate Fund XX,  L.P.,  McNeil Real Estate Fund XXIV,  L.P. and
     McNeil  Real  Estate  Fund XXV,  Ltd.  (as  defined in this  Section 3, the
     "Partnerships") as of August 4, 1995.

     Plaintiff  alleges that McNeil  Partners,  L.P.,  McNeil  Investors,  Inc.,
     Robert A. McNeil and other  senior  officers (as defined in this Section 3,
     collectively,  the "Defendants")  breached their fiduciary duties by, among
     other things,  (1) failing to attempt to sell the  properties  owned by the
     Partnerships (as defined in this Section 3, the "Properties") and extending
     the lives of the Partnerships  indefinitely,  contrary to the Partnerships'
     business plans, (2) paying  distributions to themselves and generating fees
     for their affiliates, (3) refusing to make significant distributions to the
     class members,  despite the fact that the  Partnerships  have positive cash
     flows and  substantial  cash  balances,  and (4)  failing  to take steps to
     create an auction market for equity interests of the Partnerships,  despite
     the fact that a third party bidder filed  tender  offers for  approximately
     forty-five   percent  (45%)  of  the  outstanding  units  of  each  of  the
     Partnerships.  Plaintiff  also claims that  Defendants  have  breached  the
     partnership  agreements  of the  Partnerships  by  failing to take steps to
     liquidate  the  Properties  and by their  alteration  of the  Partnerships'
     primary  purposes,  their acts in  contravention of these  agreements,  and
     their use of the assets of the  Partnerships  for their own benefit instead
     of for the benefit of the Partnerships.

     The Defendants deny that there is any merit to Plaintiff's  allegations and
     intend to vigorously defend this action.

4)   James F.  Schofield,  Gerald C.  Gillett  and Donna S.  Gillett  v.  McNeil
     Partners,  L.P.,  McNeil Investors,  Inc.,  McNeil Real Estate  Management,
     Inc., Robert A. McNeil,  Carole J. McNeil, McNeil Real Estate Fund V, Ltd.,
     McNeil Real Estate Fund IX, Ltd.,  McNeil Real Estate Fund X, Ltd.,  McNeil
     Real Estate Fund XI, Ltd.,  McNeil Real Estate Fund XIV, Ltd.,  McNeil Real
     Estate Fund XV, Ltd.,  McNeil Real Estate Fund XX, L.P., McNeil Real Estate
     Fund XXIV,  L.P.,  McNeil Real Estate Fund XXV, L.P. et al - Superior Court
     of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC133799
     (Class and Derivative  Action  Complaint) and United States District Court,
     Southern  District of New York, Case No.  95CIV.6711  (Class and Derivative
     Action Complaint)

<PAGE>

     These are  corporate/securities  class and  derivative  actions  brought in
     state and federal court by limited partners of each of the nine (9) limited
     partnerships  that are named as  nominal  defendants  as  listed  above (as
     defined in this  Section 4, the  "Partnerships").  Plaintiffs  allege  that
     McNeil Investors,  Inc., its affiliate McNeil Real Estate Management,  Inc.
     and four (4) of their senior officers and/or  directors (as defined in this
     Section 4,  collectively,  the "Defendants")  have breached their fiduciary
     duties.  Specifically,  Plaintiffs  allege that  Defendants have caused the
     Partnerships  to enter  into  several  wasteful  transactions  that have no
     business  purpose or benefit to the  Partnerships  and which have  rendered
     such units highly illiquid and  artificially  depressed the prices that are
     available for units on the limited  resale market.  Plaintiffs  also allege
     that  Defendants  have  engaged  in a course  of  conduct  to  prevent  the
     acquisition of units by Carl Icahn by disseminating  false,  misleading and
     inadequate  information.  Plaintiffs  further allege that  Defendants  have
     acted to  advance  their  own  personal  interests  at the  expense  of the
     Partnerships' public unit holders by failing to sell Partnership properties
     and  failing  to make  distributions  to  unitholders  and,  thereby,  have
     breached the partnership agreements.

     The Defendants deny that there is any merit to Plaintiff's  allegations and
     intend to vigorously defend these actions.

5)   Alfred Napoletano v. McNeil Partners, L.P., McNeil Investors,  Inc., Robert
     A. McNeil,  Carole J. McNeil,  McNeil Pacific  Investors  Fund 1972,  Ltd.,
     McNeil Real Estate Fund V, Ltd.,  McNeil Real Estate Fund IX, Ltd.,  McNeil
     Real Estate Fund X, Ltd.,  McNeil  Real Estate Fund XI,  Ltd.,  McNeil Real
     Estate Fund XIV, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XV, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate
     Fund XX, L.P.,  McNeil Real Estate Fund XXIV, L.P., McNeil Real Estate Fund
     XXV,  L.P.  -  Superior  Court of the  State of  California,  County of Los
     Angeles, Case No. BC133849 (Class Action Complaint)

     Plaintiff  brings this class action on behalf of a class of all persons and
     entities who are current owners of units and/or are limited partners in one
     or more of the partnerships referenced above (as defined in this Section 5,
     the "Partnerships").  Plaintiff alleges that McNeil Partners,  L.P., McNeil
     Investors,  Inc., Robert A. McNeil and other senior officers (as defined in
     this  Section  5,  collectively,  the  "Defendants")  have  breached  their
     fiduciary  duties to the class members by, among other  things,  (1) taking
     steps to prevent the  consummation  of the High River  tender  offers,  (2)
     failing to take steps to maximize unitholders' or limited partners' values,
     including  failure to liquidate the properties  owned by the  Partnerships,
     (3) managing the Partnerships so as to extend  indefinitely the present fee
     arrangements,  and (4) paying itself and entities  owned and  controlled by
     the  general  partner  excessive  fees and  reimbursements  of general  and
     administrative expenses.

     The Defendants deny that there is any merit to Plaintiff's  allegations and
     intend to vigorously defend this action.

6)   Warren Heller v. McNeil Partners,  L.P., McNeil Investors,  Inc., Robert A.
     McNeil,  Carole J. McNeil, McNeil Pacific Investors Fund 1972, Ltd., McNeil
     Real Estate Fund V, Ltd.,  McNeil  Real Estate Fund IX,  Ltd.,  McNeil Real
     Estate Fund X, Ltd.,  McNeil Real Estate Fund XI, Ltd.,  McNeil Real Estate
     Fund XIV, Ltd.,  McNeil Real Estate Fund XV, Ltd.,  McNeil Real Estate Fund
     XX, L.P.,  McNeil Real Estate Fund XXIV, L.P., McNeil Real Estate Fund XXV,
     L.P. - Superior  Court of the State of  California,  County of Los Angeles,
     Case No. BC133957 (Class Action Complaint)


<PAGE>

     Plaintiff  brings this class action on behalf of a class of all persons and
     entities who are current owners of units and/or are limited partners in one
     or more of the partnerships referenced above (as defined in this Section 6,
     the "Partnerships").  Plaintiff alleges that McNeil Partners,  L.P., McNeil
     Investors,  Inc., Robert A. McNeil and other senior officers (as defined in
     this  Section  6,  collectively,  the  "Defendants")  have  breached  their
     fiduciary  duties to the class members by, among other  things,  (1) taking
     steps to prevent the  consummation  of the High River  tender  offers,  (2)
     failing to take steps to maximize unitholders' or limited partners' values,
     including  failure to liquidate the properties  owned by the  Partnerships,
     (3) managing the Partnerships so as to extend  indefinitely the present fee
     arrangements,  and (4) paying itself and entities  owned and  controlled by
     the  general  partner  excessive  fees and  reimbursements  of general  and
     administrative expenses.

     The Defendants deny that there is any merit to Plaintiff's  allegations and
     intend to vigorously defend this action.

For a discussion of the Southmark  bankruptcy,  see Item 1 - Business.  See also
Item 8 - Note 9 - "Gain on Legal Settlement."

ITEM 4.   SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS
-------   ---------------------------------------------------

None.

                                     PART II

ITEM 5.   MARKET FOR THE REGISTRANT'S UNITS OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND
-------   ------------------------------------------------------------
          RELATED SECURITY HOLDER MATTERS
          -------------------------------

(A)  There is no  established  public  trading  market for  limited  partnership
     units, nor is one expected to develop.

(B)  Title of Class                  Number of Record Unit Holders
     --------------                  -----------------------------
     
     Limited partnership units       4,896 as of February 16, 1996

(C)  No distributions  were made to the limited partners during 1995 or 1994 and
     none are  anticipated in 1996. The  Partnership  accrued  distributions  of
     $1,070,763  and  $973,023  for the benefit of the  General  Partner for the
     years ended  December 31, 1995 and 1994,  respectively,  of which  $357,763
     remains  unpaid at December 31,  1995.  These  distributions  relate to the
     contingent MID pursuant to the Amended Partnership Agreement. Distributions
     of contingent  MID are expected to be paid to the General  Partner in 1996.
     See  Item  8 -  Note  2 -  "Transactions  with  Affiliates."  See  Item 7 -
     Management's  Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
     Operations for a discussion of the  likelihood  that the  Partnership  will
     resume distributions to the limited partners.


<PAGE>

ITEM 6. SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA

The  following  table sets forth a summary  of  certain  financial  data for the
Partnership.  This summary should be read in conjunction with the  Partnership's
financial statements and notes thereto appearing in Item 8.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

Statements of                                                Years Ended December 31,
Operations                              1995           1994            1993           1992           1991
------------------                  -------------  -------------  --------------  -------------  ------------
<S>                                 <C>            <C>            <C>             <C>            <C>         
Rental revenue...............       $  19,123,434  $  18,202,306  $  17,215,644   $ 16,487,239   $ 15,808,082
Total revenue................          19,567,182     18,642,220     17,367,511     16,636,929     16,123,484
Loss before extraordinary
 items.......................            (328,996)      (387,787)    (1,320,829)    (1,613,265)    (1,927,436)
Extraordinary items..........                   -              -        (31,055)       104,096              -
Net loss.....................            (328,996)      (387,787)    (1,351,884)    (1,509,169)    (1,927,436)

Net loss per limited
 partnership unit:
Loss before
 extraordinary items.........       $       (9.19) $       (9.21) $      (19.30)  $     (22.05)  $     (16.62)
Extraordinary items.........                    -              -           (.28)           .94              -
                                     ------------   ------------   ------------    ------------   -----------

Net loss.....................       $       (9.19) $       (9.21) $      (19.58)  $     (21.11) $      (16.62)
                                     ============   ============   ============    ===========    ===========

                                                                   December 31,
Balance Sheets                          1995           1994            1993           1992           1991
--------------                      -------------  -------------  --------------  -------------  -------------

Real estate investments, net...     $  42,434,162  $  42,830,552  $   42,133,962  $  42,478,066 $   42,764,914
Total assets...................        49,970,886     51,749,891      53,376,263     49,696,209     51,098,910
Mortgage notes payable, net....        51,390,822     52,098,952      52,610,769     46,917,274     44,846,933
Partners' equity (deficit).....        (4,400,760)    (3,001,001)     (1,640,191)       519,560      2,700,630

</TABLE>

See Item 7 -  Management's  Discussion  and Analysis of Financial  Condition and
Results of Operations.

ITEM 7.   MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
-------   -----------------------------------------------------------
          AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
          -------------------------

FINANCIAL CONDITION
-------------------

The  Partnership  was formed to  acquire,  operate and  ultimately  dispose of a
portfolio  of  income-producing  real  properties.  At  the  end  of  1995,  the
Partnership   owned  fourteen   apartment   properties.   All  but  one  of  the
Partnership's properties are subject to mortgage notes.


<PAGE>

RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
---------------------

1995 compared to 1994

Revenue:

Rental  revenue for 1995 increased  $921,128 or 5.1% over 1994 rental  revenues.
Rental revenues increased at all of the Partnership's  properties,  except for a
 .7%  decrease at Cherry  Hills.  The  Partnership  raised  base rental  rates an
average of 4.0% at all of its  properties.  Increases  in base rental rates were
partially  offset by lower average  occupancy rates at Berkley Hills,  Westgate,
Westridge   and   Williamsburg.   Occupancy   rates  at  the  remainder  of  the
Partnership's properties increased or remained steady.

As discussed  in Note 9 - "Gain on Legal  Settlement,"  in 1995 the  Partnership
received cash and common and  preferred  stock in the  reorganized  Southmark in
settlement  of  its  bankruptcy  claims  against   Southmark.   The  Partnership
recognized a one-time gain of $70,817 gain as result of this settlement.

The Partnership also recorded a $125,967 gain on involuntary conversion in 1995.
The gain relates to hail damage incurred at Westridge Apartments on May 5, 1995,
and to a fire that destroyed two units at Cherry Hill  Apartments on November 3,
1995.  The  Partnership  incurred  damages of $150,938  and $55,495 at Westridge
Apartments and Cherry Hill Apartments,  respectively. The Partnership received a
total of  $185,094  from its  insurance  carrier  to repair  the  damage at both
properties.  The excess of insurance  proceeds  over the  adjusted  basis of the
property destroyed resulted in gains of $109,006 and $16,961, respectively.

Expenses:

Partnership  expenses  increased  $866,171 or 4.6% in 1995 compared to 1994. The
increased   expenses  were   concentrated  in   depreciation   and  general  and
administrative expenses.

Depreciation  expense  increased  $527,010  or 15.5% in 1995  compared  to 1994.
Increased depreciation expense is the result of depreciation on the $3.6 million
of  new  capital  improvements  placed  in  service  during  1995.  The  capital
improvements  are  generally  depreciated  over lives  ranging  from five to ten
years.

General and  administrative  expenses increased $120,290 or 68% in 1995 compared
to 1994. The Partnership  incurred  $173,497 of costs relating to the evaluation
and dissemination of information with regards to an unsolicited tender offer. No
such expenses were incurred in 1994.

1994 compared to 1993

Revenue:

Rental revenues for 1994 increased  $986,662 or 5.7% over 1993 rental  revenues.
Rental revenues increased at thirteen of the Partnership's  fourteen properties.
The  Partnership  raised base rental rates at all of its  properties  except for
Westridge  Apartments.  Increases in base rental rates were partially  offset by
lower average occupancy rates at Meridian West Apartments, Pennbrook Apartments,
Ruskin Place  Apartments,  Sheraton Hills  Apartments  and Westgate  Apartments.
Average occupancy rates at the remainder of the properties increased or remained
the same.


<PAGE>

Interest revenue  increased 66% because of refinancing  proceeds invested by the
Partnership in interest-bearing accounts.

The Partnership recorded a $187,854 gain on involuntary  conversion in 1994. The
gain relates to freeze damage  incurred at Rolling  Hills  Apartments on January
19, 1994, and to a fire that destroyed eleven units at Rockborough Apartments on
April 25, 1994.  The  Partnership  incurred  damages of $157,680 and $225,123 at
Rolling  Hills  Apartments  and  Rockborough   Apartments,   respectively.   The
Partnership  received a total of $359,878 from its  insurance  carrier to repair
the  damage at both  properties.  The  excess  of  insurance  proceeds  over the
adjusted  basis of the  property  destroyed  resulted in gains of  $108,522  and
$79,332 at Rolling Hills Apartments and Rockborough Apartments, respectively.

Expenses:

Partnership  expenses  increased  $341,667  or 1.8% in 1994  compared  to  1993.
Expenses  increased  at  eight of the  Partnership's  fourteen  properties.  The
increased  expenses were  concentrated in depreciation,  personnel  expenses and
property management fees - affiliates.

Depreciation  expense increased  $375,961 or 12.5% in 1994 compared to 1993. The
increase is due to capital  improvements placed in service during the past three
years.  These  improvements  generally are being  depreciated over lives ranging
from five to ten years.

Personnel  expenses  increased  $200,579  or  8.8%  in 1994  compared  to  1993.
Personnel  expenses have  increased and are expected to continue to increase due
to the  Partnership's  effort  to  increase  occupancy  rates by the  continuous
refurbishment  of residential  units and upgrade of services offered to tenants.
Such improvements are partially  achieved through higher  maintenance  standards
that require additional personnel and maintenance expenditures. Higher personnel
expenses  can  also  be  attributed  to  on-site  personnel  performing  certain
maintenance procedures that were formerly contracted to vendors.

Property  management fees paid to affiliates  increased  $60,579 or 7.1% in 1994
compared to 1993. The increase is due to the increase of rental  receipts of the
Partnership,  as noted  above.  Net rental  receipts  are the figures upon which
property management fees are based.

General and  administrative  expense decreased $58,891 or 25% for the year ended
December 31, 1994.  This  decrease was due to savings the  Partnership  achieved
through a new tax  processing  and  reporting  system and reduction in legal and
professional  fees.  General  and  administrative  expenses  paid to  affiliates
decreased  $17,982 or 2.4% during 1994 compared to 1993.  These expenses include
the fixed portion of the MID and  reimbursement  of overhead  costs  incurred by
McREMI  in  managing  the  Partnership.  Fixed  MID  decreased  $114,720  due to
elimination  of the  fixed  MID  effective  July 1,  1993.  Cost  reimbursements
increased  $96,738 due to a  reduction  in the number of  properties  managed by
McREMI over which such costs are allocated.

All other expense items decreased a total of 1.9% in 1994 compared to 1993.


<PAGE>

LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL RESOURCES
-------------------------------

During  the  three  year  period  ended  December  31,  1995,  the   Partnership
experienced  losses  totaling  $2,068,667.  However,  during the same three year
period,  the  Partnership  generated  $10,013,508  of cash flow  from  operating
activities.  Cash provided by operating  activities increased $71,879 of 1.9% in
1995 compared to 1994. A 17.6%  increase in cash paid to suppliers was more than
offset by an increase in cash  received  from tenants and  decreases in interest
paid and property taxes paid and escrowed.

The  Partnership  continued to invest in capital  improvements at its properties
during 1995.  The  Partnership  invested  $3.4 million for capital  improvements
during  1995,  net of  insurance  proceeds,  a  decrease  from the $3.9  million
invested by the Partnership  during 1994.  These  expenditures  are necessary to
allow the Partnership's aging properties to maintain their appeal to current and
prospective tenants. The Partnership has budgeted an additional $1.6 million for
capital improvements for 1996.

During  1994 and  1993,  the  Partnership  refinanced  or  modified  nine of its
thirteen   mortgage  notes.   These   transactions   added   $5,055,199  to  the
Partnership's cash reserves,  after payment of related deferred borrowing costs,
and  have  reduced  the  weighted  average  interest  rate of the  Partnership's
mortgage indebtedness to 8.61% from 9.79%. Cash proceeds from these transactions
decreased to $161,809 in 1994  compared to  $6,282,227  in 1993.  As a result of
these  transactions,  the Partnership's next maturing mortgage does not come due
until January 1998.

Short-term liquidity:

Due  to  the  refinancing   transactions,   the  Partnership  enters  1996  with
substantial cash reserves.  These reserves will be needed to address  continuing
capital  improvement  needs in light of the aging condition of the Partnership's
properties. The Partnership has budgeted $1,600,000 for capital improvements for
1996 in addition to the $10.5  million of capital  improvements  made during the
past three years.  The General Partner  believes these capital  improvements are
necessary  to allow the  Partnership  to  increase  its rental  revenues  in the
competitive  markets  in  which  the  Partnership's  properties  operate.  These
expenditures   also  allow  the   Partnership  to  reduce  certain  repairs  and
maintenance expenses from amounts that would otherwise be incurred.

At  December  31,  1995,  the  Partnership  held  $3,059,582  of cash  and  cash
equivalents,  down  $1,140,262  from the balance at the end of 1994. The General
Partner  anticipates  that  cash  generated  from  operations  in  1996  will be
sufficient to fund the Partnership's  budgeted capital improvements and to repay
the current portion of the Partnership's  mortgage notes. The Partnership's next
maturing mortgage note does not come due until January 1998. However,  1996 cash
flow from operations likely will not be adequate to pay administrative costs and
MID  obligations due to affiliates.  The Partnership  will use its cash reserves
for these  expenditures.  The General Partner considers the  Partnership's  cash
reserves adequate for anticipated operations for 1996.


<PAGE>

The General Partner has established a revolving credit  facility,  not to exceed
$5,000,000  in  the  aggregate,  which  will  be  available  on  a  "first-come,
first-served"  basis to the  Partnership  and other  affiliated  partnerships if
certain  conditions are met.  Borrowings  under the facility may be used to fund
deferred maintenance,  refinancing  obligations and working capital needs. There
is no assurance  that the  Partnership  will receive  additional  funds from the
facility because no amount will be reserved for any particular  partnership.  As
of December 31, 1995, $2,662,819 remained available from the facility;  however,
additional funds could become available as other  partnerships repay borrowings.
This commitment will terminate on November 12, 1996.

Long-term liquidity:

For the long term,  property operations will remain the primary source of funds.
In this regard,  the General  Partner  expects that the $10.5 million of capital
improvements  made by the  Partnership  during the past  three  years will yield
improved cash flow from property  operations in 1996.  Furthermore,  the General
Partner has budgeted an additional  $1,600,000 of capital improvements for 1996.
If the Partnership's cash position  deteriorates,  the General Partner may elect
to defer certain of the capital improvements, except where such improvements are
expected to increase the  competitiveness  or marketability of the Partnership's
properties.

As an additional  source of liquidity,  the General  Partner may attempt to sell
Partnership  properties judged to be mature considering the circumstances of the
market where the properties are located,  as well as the Partnership's  need for
liquidity.  However, there can be no guarantee that the Partnership will be able
to sell any of its  properties  for an amount  sufficient  to retire the related
mortgage note and still provide cash proceeds to the  Partnership,  or that such
cash  proceeds  could be  timed to  coincide  with  the  liquidity  needs of the
Partnership.  Currently, no Partnership properties are being marketed for sale.

Income Allocations and Distributions:

Terms  of  the  Amended   Partnership   Agreement  specify  that  income  before
depreciation is allocated to the General Partner to the extent of contingent MID
paid in cash.  Depreciation  is  allocated  in the ratio of 95:5 to the  limited
partners and the General  Partner,  respectively.  Therefore  for the three year
period ended December 31, 1995, $684,002, $627,358, and $804,977,  respectively,
was allocated to the General Partner.  The limited partners received allocations
of net loss of ($1,012,998),  ($1,015,145),  and ($2,156,861) for the three year
period ended December 31, 1995, respectively.

With the exception of the contingent  MID,  distributions  to partners have been
suspended  since 1986 as part of the  General  Partner's  policy of  maintaining
adequate cash reserves.  Distributions to Unit holders will remain suspended for
the  foreseeable  future.  The General Partner will continue to monitor the cash
reserves and working  capital needs of the  Partnership  to determine  when cash
flows    will   support   distributions   to  the Unit holders. During 1995, the
Partnership recorded contingent MID of $1,070,763.


<PAGE>

ITEM 8.  FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA
-------  -------------------------------------------

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                   Page
                                                                   Number
                                                                   ------

INDEX TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
-----------------------------

Financial Statements:
   <S>                                                              <C>
   Report of Independent Public Accountants.............            18

   Balance Sheets at December 31, 1995 and 1994.........            19

   Statements of Operations for each of the three 
     years in the period ended December 31, 1995........            20

   Statements of Partners' Equity (Deficit) for each 
     of the three years in the period ended
     December 31, 1995..................................            21

   Statements of Cash Flows for each of the three 
     years in the period ended December 31, 1995........            22

   Notes to Financial Statements........................            24

   Financial Statement Schedule:

      Schedule III - Real Estate Investments and
         Accumulated Depreciation.......................            37

</TABLE>



All other schedules are omitted because they are not applicable or the financial
information  required  is  included  in the  financial  statements  or the notes
thereto.


<PAGE>


                    REPORT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



To the Partners of
McNeil Real Estate Fund IX, Ltd.:


We have audited the  accompanying  balance sheets of McNeil Real Estate Fund IX,
Ltd. (a California  limited  partnership)  as of December 31, 1995 and 1994, and
the related statements of operations,  partners' equity (deficit) and cash flows
for each of the  three  years in the  period  ended  December  31,  1995.  These
financial  statements and the schedule referred to below are the  responsibility
of the Partnership's management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on
these financial statements and the schedule based on our audits.

We  conducted  our  audits  in  accordance  with  generally   accepted  auditing
standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement.  An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.  An audit also includes
assessing the  accounting  principles  used and  significant  estimates  made by
management,  as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.
We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion,  the financial  statements  referred to above present fairly, in
all material  respects,  the  financial  position of McNeil Real Estate Fund IX,
Ltd. as of December 31, 1995 and 1994, and the results of its operations and its
cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 1995, in
conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.

Our  audits  were  made for the  purpose  of  forming  an  opinion  on the basic
financial  statements  taken as a whole.  The  schedule  listed  in the index to
financial  statements is presented for purposes of complying with the Securities
and  Exchange  Commission's  rules  and  is not  part  of  the  basic  financial
statements.  This schedule has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied
in our audits of the basic  financial  statements  and, in our  opinion,  fairly
states in all material  respects  the  financial  data  required to be set forth
therein in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole.



/s/  Arthur Andersen LLP


Dallas, Texas
    March 6, 1996



<PAGE>
                        McNEIL REAL ESTATE FUND IX, LTD.

                                 BALANCE SHEETS


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                  December 31,
                                                                       -----------------------------------
                                                                            1995                 1994
                                                                       ---------------      --------------
ASSETS
------
   <S>                                                                    <C>                  <C>           
Real estate investments:   
   Land.....................................................           $     6,716,099      $    6,716,099
   Buildings and improvements...............................                83,847,294          80,388,616
                                                                        --------------       -------------
                                                                            90,563,393          87,104,715
   Less:  Accumulated depreciation..........................               (48,129,231)        (44,274,163)
                                                                        --------------       -------------
                                                                            42,434,162          42,830,552

Cash and cash equivalents...................................                 3,059,582           4,199,844
Cash segregated for security deposits.......................                   534,609             494,801
Accounts receivable.........................................                   114,367              64,464
Prepaid expenses and other assets...........................                   223,959             211,266
Escrow deposits.............................................                 1,418,389           1,561,384
Deferred borrowing costs, net of accumulated
   amortization of $689,693 and $487,931 at
   December 31, 1995 and 1994, respectively.................                 2,185,818           2,387,580
                                                                        --------------       -------------

                                                                       $    49,970,886      $   51,749,891
                                                                        ==============       =============

LIABILITIES AND PARTNERS' DEFICIT
---------------------------------

Mortgage notes payable, net.................................           $    51,390,822      $   52,098,952
Accounts payable............................................                   266,777             413,894
Accrued property taxes......................................                   962,251             934,733
Accrued interest............................................                   374,740             303,521
Other accrued expenses......................................                   306,022             192,952
Payable to affiliates - General Partner.....................                   508,369             308,131
Security deposits and deferred rental revenue...............                   562,665             498,709
                                                                        --------------       -------------
                                                                            54,371,646          54,750,892
                                                                        --------------       -------------

Partners' deficit:
   Limited partners - 110,200 limited partnership
     units authorized, 110,170 limited partnership
     units issued and outstanding...........................                (1,574,003)           (561,005)
   General Partner..........................................                (2,826,757)         (2,439,996)
                                                                        --------------       -------------
                                                                            (4,400,760)         (3,001,001)
                                                                        --------------       -------------
                                                                       $    49,970,886      $   51,749,891
                                                                        ==============       =============
</TABLE>

                 See accompanying notes to financial statements.


<PAGE>
                        McNEIL REAL ESTATE FUND IX, LTD.

                            STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                          For the Years Ended December 31,
                                                   ----------------------------------------------------
                                                       1995               1994               1993
                                                   --------------     --------------    ---------------
<S>                                                <C>                <C>               <C>            
Revenue:
   Rental revenue..........................        $   19,123,434     $   18,202,306    $    17,215,644
   Interest................................               246,964            252,060            151,867
   Gain on legal settlement................                70,817                  -                  -
   Gain on involuntary conversions.........               125,967            187,854                  -
                                                    -------------      -------------     --------------
     Total revenue.........................            19,567,182         18,642,220         17,367,511
                                                    -------------      -------------     --------------

Expenses:
   Interest................................             4,856,024          4,884,548          4,881,418
   Depreciation............................             3,919,845          3,392,835          3,016,874
   Property taxes..........................             1,436,453          1,341,960          1,360,979
   Personnel expenses......................             2,511,799          2,472,613          2,272,034
   Repairs and maintenance.................             2,377,270          2,423,640          2,577,210
   Property management fees -
     affiliates............................               946,627            915,989            855,410
   Utilities...............................             1,556,159          1,527,997          1,535,302
   Other property operating expenses.......             1,261,940          1,174,837          1,216,652
   General and administrative..............               296,175            175,885            234,776
   General and administrative -
     affiliates............................               733,886            719,703            737,685
                                                    -------------      -------------     --------------
     Total expenses........................            19,896,178         19,030,007         18,688,340
                                                    -------------      -------------     --------------

Loss before extraordinary items............              (328,996)          (387,787)        (1,320,829)
Extraordinary items........................                     -                  -            (31,055)
                                                    -------------      -------------     --------------

Net loss...................................        $     (328,996)    $     (387,787)   $    (1,351,884)
                                                    =============      =============     ==============

Net loss allocated to limited
   partners................................        $   (1,012,998)    $   (1,015,145)   $    (2,156,861)
Net income allocated to the
   General Partner.........................               684,002            627,358            804,977
                                                    -------------      -------------     --------------

Net loss...................................        $     (328,996)    $     (387,787)   $    (1,351,884)
                                                    =============      =============     ==============

Net loss per limited partnership unit:
   Loss before extraordinary items.........        $        (9.19)    $        (9.21)   $       (19.30)
   Extraordinary items.....................                     -                  -              (.28)
                                                    -------------      -------------     -------------
   Net loss per limited partnership
     unit..................................        $        (9.19)    $        (9.21)   $       (19.58)
                                                    =============      =============     =============
</TABLE>




                 See accompanying notes to financial statements.

<PAGE>
                        McNEIL REAL ESTATE FUND IX, LTD.

                    STATEMENTS OF PARTNERS' EQUITY (DEFICIT)

              For the Years Ended December 31, 1995, 1994 and 1993


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                                      Total
                                                                                                    Partners'
                                                    General                 Limited                  Equity
                                                    Partner                 Partners                (Deficit)

<S>                                              <C>                     <C>           <C>            
Balance at December 31, 1992..............       $    (2,091,441)        $     2,611,001       $       519,560

Net income (loss).........................               804,977              (2,156,861)           (1,351,884)

Contingent Management Incentive
   Distribution...........................              (807,867)                      -              (807,867)
                                                  --------------          --------------        --------------

Balance at December 31, 1993..............            (2,094,331)                454,140            (1,640,191)

Net income (loss).........................               627,358              (1,015,145)             (387,787)

Contingent Management Incentive
   Distribution...........................              (973,023)                      -              (973,023)
                                                  --------------          --------------        --------------

Balance at December 31, 1994..............            (2,439,996)               (561,005)           (3,001,001)

Net income (loss).........................               684,002              (1,012,998)             (328,996)

Contingent Management Incentive
   Distribution...........................            (1,070,763)                      -            (1,070,763)
                                                  --------------          --------------        --------------

Balance at December 31, 1995..............       $    (2,826,757)        $    (1,574,003)      $    (4,400,760)
                                                  ==============          ==============        ==============
</TABLE>




















                 See accompanying notes to financial statements.


<PAGE>
                        McNEIL REAL ESTATE FUND IX, LTD.

                            STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

                Increase (Decrease) in Cash and Cash Equivalents
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                            For the Years Ended December 31,
                                                   ----------------------------------------------------
                                                        1995               1994               1993
                                                   --------------     --------------    ---------------
<S>                                                <C>                <C>               <C>            
Cash flows from operating activities:
   Cash received from tenants..............        $   19,040,536     $   18,213,413    $    17,136,777
   Cash received from legal settlement.....                70,817                  -                  -
   Cash paid to suppliers..................            (7,922,261)        (6,737,217)        (7,410,556)
   Cash paid to affiliates.................            (1,671,044)        (1,623,756)        (1,598,588)
   Interest received.......................               246,964            252,060            151,867
   Interest paid...........................            (4,542,671)        (4,851,901)        (4,502,322)
   Property taxes paid and escrowed........            (1,336,619)        (1,438,756)        (1,463,235)
                                                    -------------      -------------     --------------
Net cash provided by operating
   activities..............................             3,885,722          3,813,843          2,313,943
                                                    -------------      -------------     --------------

Cash flows from investing activities:
   Additions to real estate
     investments...........................            (3,582,582)        (4,261,449)        (2,672,770)
   Insurance proceeds from fire/freeze
     damage................................               185,094            359,878                  -
                                                    -------------      -------------     --------------
Net cash used in investing
   activities..............................            (3,397,488)        (3,901,571)        (2,672,770)
                                                    -------------      -------------     --------------

Cash flows from financing activities:
   Principal payments on mortgage
     notes payable.........................              (748,502)          (711,658)          (632,553)
   Deferred borrowing costs paid...........                     -           (120,486)        (1,268,351)
   Contingent Management Incentive
     Distribution..........................              (879,994)          (797,000)          (955,821)
   Net cash proceeds from refinancing/
     modification of mortgage
     notes payable.........................                     -            161,809          6,282,227
                                                    -------------      -------------     --------------
Net cash provided by (used in)
   financing activities....................            (1,628,496)        (1,467,335)         3,425,502
                                                    -------------      -------------     --------------

Net increase (decrease) in cash and
   cash equivalents........................            (1,140,262)        (1,555,063)         3,066,675

Cash and cash equivalents at
   beginning of year.......................             4,199,844          5,754,907          2,688,232
                                                    -------------      -------------     --------------

Cash and cash equivalents at end
   of year.................................        $    3,059,582     $    4,199,844    $    5,754,907
                                                    =============      =============     =============
</TABLE>



                 See accompanying notes to financial statements.

<PAGE>
                        McNEIL REAL ESTATE FUND IX, LTD.

                            STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

               Reconciliation of Net Loss to Net Cash Provided by
                              Operating Activities

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                            For the Years Ended December 31,
                                                   -----------------------------------------------------
                                                         1995               1994               1993   
                                                   ---------------    ---------------   ----------------

<S>                                                <C>                <C>               <C>             
Net loss...................................        $     (328,996)    $     (387,787)   $    (1,351,884)
                                                    -------------      -------------     --------------

Adjustments to reconcile net loss
   to net cash provided by operating
   activities:
   Depreciation............................             3,919,845          3,392,835          3,016,874
   Amortization of discounts on
     mortgage notes payable................                40,372             38,032             18,241
   Amortization of deferred borrowing
     costs.................................               201,762            159,019            173,538
   Extraordinary items.....................                     -                  -             31,055
   Gain on involuntary conversions.........              (125,967)          (187,854)                 -
   Changes in assets and liabilities:
     Cash segregated for security
       deposits............................               (39,808)           (11,032)           (56,623)
     Accounts receivable...................               (49,903)            40,537             66,724
     Prepaid expenses and other
       assets..............................               (12,693)            19,334            234,713
     Escrow deposits.......................               142,995            680,527           (112,959)
     Accounts payable......................              (147,117)           158,350            141,302
     Accrued property taxes................                27,518              6,890            (71,809)
     Accrued interest......................                71,219           (164,404)           187,317
     Other accrued expenses................               113,070             32,114             31,076
     Payable to affiliates - General
       Partner.............................                 9,469             11,936             (5,493)
     Security deposits and deferred
       rental revenue......................                63,956             25,346             11,871
                                                    -------------      -------------     --------------

         Total adjustments.................             4,214,718          4,201,630          3,665,827
                                                    -------------      -------------     --------------

Net cash provided by operating
     activities............................        $    3,885,722     $    3,813,843    $    2,313,943
                                                    =============      =============     =============
</TABLE>








                 See accompanying notes to financial statements.


<PAGE>
                        McNEIL REAL ESTATE FUND IX, LTD.

                          NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

                                December 31, 1995

NOTE 1 - ORGANIZATION AND SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Organization
------------

McNeil Real Estate Fund IX, Ltd., (the "Partnership") was organized May 1, 1978,
as a limited  partnership  under  provisions of the California  Uniform  Limited
Partnership  Act. The general partner of the Partnership is McNeil Partners L.P.
(the "General Partner"), a Delaware limited partnership,  an affiliate of Robert
A. McNeil  ("McNeil").  The  Partnership  is governed by an amended and restated
partnership agreement of limited partnership dated November 12, 1991, as amended
(the "Amended Partnership  Agreement").  The principal place of business for the
Partnership and the General Partner is 13760 Noel Road, Suite 700, LB70, Dallas,
Texas, 75240.

The Partnership is engaged in real estate  activities,  including the ownership,
operation  and  management  of  residential  real  estate and other real  estate
related assets. At December 31, 1995, the Partnership owned 14  income-producing
properties as described in Note 4 - Real Estate Investments.

Basis of Presentation
---------------------

The  accompanying  financial  statements  have been prepared in conformity  with
generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP").  The preparation of financial
statements in conformity  with GAAP  requires  management to make  estimates and
assumptions  that  affect the  reported  amounts of assets and  liabilities  and
disclosure of  contingent  assets and  liabilities  at the date of the financial
statements  and the  reported  amounts  of  revenues  and  expenses  during  the
reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

The  Partnership's  financial  statements  include the accounts of the following
listed tier  partnerships  for the years ended December 31, 1995, 1994 and 1993.
These single asset tier partnerships were formed to accommodate the refinancings
of the related  properties.  The ownership  interest of the  Partnership and the
General  Partner in each tier  partnership is detailed  below.  The  Partnership
retains  effective  control  of each tier  partnership.  The  General  Partner's
minority interest is not presented because it is either negative or immaterial.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                              % of Ownership Interest
   Tier Partnership                                                      Partnership     General Partner
   ----------------                                                      -----------     ---------------
     <S>                                                                     <C>                <C>  
   Limited partnerships:
     Cherry Hills Fund IX Limited Partnership (a) ................           100                -
     Forest Park Fund IX Associates Limited Partnership (b).......            99                1
     Lantern Tree Fund IX Limited Partnership (a) ................           100                -
     Meridian West Fund IX Limited Partnership (a)................           100                -
     Pennbrook Fund IX Associates, L.P............................            99                1
     Rockborough Fund IX Limited Partnership (a)..................           100                -
     Rolling Hills Fund IX Associates, L.P........................            99                1
     Williamsburg Fund IX Limited Partnership (a).................           100                -

   General partnerships:
     Berkley Hills Associates.....................................            99                1
     Ruskin Place Fund IX Associates..............................            99                1
     Sherwood Forest Fund IX Associates...........................            99                1
</TABLE>

<PAGE>

(a)  The general partner of these  partnerships is a corporation  whose stock is
     100% owned by the Partnership.

(b)  Forest Park Fund IX Associates  has assigned all interest and rights to the
     Partnership.

Real Estate Investments
-----------------------

Real  estate  investments  are  generally  stated  at the  lower  of cost or net
realizable value.  Real estate  investments are monitored on an ongoing basis to
determine if the property has sustained a permanent impairment in value. At such
time,  a  write-down  is recorded to reduce the basis of the property to its net
realizable  value. A permanent  impairment is determined to have occurred when a
decline in property  value is considered to be other than  temporary  based upon
management's  expectations  with respect to projected  cash flows and prevailing
economic conditions.

Improvements and betterments are capitalized and expensed  through  depreciation
charges. Repairs and maintenance are charged to operations as incurred.

In March 1995,  the Financial  Accounting  Standards  Board issued  Statement of
Financial  Accounting  Standards  No. 121,  "Accounting  for the  Impairment  of
Long-Lived  Assets and for Long-Lived  Assets to be Disposed Of." This statement
requires that long-lived assets and certain identifiable  intangibles to be held
and used by an entity be reviewed for impairment  whenever  events or changes in
circumstances  indicate  that  the  carrying  amount  of an  asset  may  not  be
recoverable.  This  statement is effective for financial  statements  for fiscal
years  beginning  after December 15, 1995. The  Partnership  has not adopted the
principles  of this  statement  within the  accompanying  financial  statements;
however,  it is not anticipated that adoption will have a material effect on the
carrying value of the Partnership's long-lived assets.

Depreciation
------------

Buildings and improvements are depreciated using the  straight-line  method over
the estimated useful lives of the assets, ranging from 3 to 32 years.

Cash and Cash Equivalents
-------------------------

Cash  and  cash  equivalents  include  cash on hand  and  cash on  deposit  with
financial  institutions  with  original  maturities  of  three  months  or less.
Carrying amounts for cash and cash equivalents approximate fair value.

Escrow Deposits
---------------

The  Partnership is required to maintain  escrow accounts in accordance with the
terms of various  mortgage  agreements.  These escrow accounts are controlled by
the  mortgagee  and are used for payment of property  taxes,  hazard  insurance,
capital improvements and/or property  replacements.  Carrying amounts for escrow
deposits approximate fair value.


<PAGE>

Deferred Borrowing Costs
------------------------

Loan fees and other related costs incurred to obtain long-term financing on real
property are  capitalized  and amortized  using a method that  approximates  the
effective  interest method over the terms of the related mortgage notes payable.
Amortization of deferred  borrowing costs is included in interest expense on the
Statements of Operations.

Discounts on Mortgage Notes Payable
-----------------------------------

Discounts on mortgage  notes payable are amortized  over the remaining  terms of
the related mortgage notes using the effective interest method.  Amortization of
discounts  on mortgage  notes  payable is  included  in interest  expense on the
Statements of Operations.

Rental Revenue
--------------

The Partnership leases its properties under short-term  operating leases.  Lease
terms generally are less than one year in duration. Rental revenue is recognized
as earned.

Income Taxes
------------

No provision for Federal  income taxes is necessary in the financial  statements
of the  Partnership  because,  as a  partnership,  it is not  subject to Federal
income tax and the tax effect of its activities accrues to the partners.

Allocation of Net Income and Net Loss
-------------------------------------

The Amended  Partnership  Agreement  provides  for net income or net loss of the
Partnership for both financial statement and income tax reporting purposes to be
allocated as indicated below. For allocation  purposes,  net income and net loss
of the Partnership are determined prior to deductions for depreciation.

(a)  First,  5% of all  deductions  for  depreciation  shall be allocated to the
     General  Partner,  and 95% of all  deductions  for  depreciation  shall  be
     allocated to the limited partners;

(b)  then, an amount of net income equal to the cumulative  amount of Contingent
     Management  Incentive  Distribution  ("Contingent MID") paid to the General
     Partner for which no income has  previously  been  allocated  (see Note 2 -
     "Transactions  with Affiliates") shall be allocated to the General Partner;
     however,  if all or a portion of the  Contingent  MID  consists  of limited
     partnership  units ("Units"),  the amount of net income so allocated to the
     General  Partner  shall be equal to the amount of cash the General  Partner
     would have otherwise received;

(c)  then,  any remaining  net income shall be allocated to the General  Partner
     and to the  limited  partners  so  that  the  total  amount  of net  income
     allocated to the General  Partner  pursuant to paragraph (b) above and this
     paragraph (c), and to the limited partners  pursuant to this paragraph (c),
     shall be in the ratio of 5% to the  General  Partner and 95% to the limited
     partners.


<PAGE>

(d)  Net loss shall be allocated  95% percent to the limited  partners and 5% to
     the General Partner.

Federal  income tax law provides  that the  allocation of loss to a partner will
not be  recognized  unless the  allocation  is in  accordance  with a  partner's
interest in the partnership or the allocation has substantial  economic  effect.
Internal  Revenue  Code Section  704(b) and  accompanying  Treasury  Regulations
establish  criteria for  allocations of Partnership  deductions  attributable to
debt. The  Partnership's  tax allocations for 1995, 1994 and 1993 have been made
in accordance with these provisions.

Distributions
-------------

Pursuant to the Amended Partnership  Agreement and at the sole discretion of the
General  Partner,  distributions  during  each  taxable  year  shall  be made as
follows:

(a)  first, to the General Partner, an amount equal to the Contingent MID; and

(b)  any remaining  distributable cash, as defined, shall be distributed 100% to
     the limited partners.

No  distributions  were made to the limited  partners in 1995, 1994 or 1993. The
Partnership accrued  distributions of $1,070,763,  $973,023 and $807,867 for the
benefit of the General  Partner for the years ended December 31, 1995,  1994 and
1993,  respectively.  These distributions are the Contingent MID pursuant to the
Amended Partnership Agreement.

Net Loss Per Limited Partnership Unit
-------------------------------------

Net loss per limited partnership unit is computed by dividing net loss allocated
to the limited partners by the weighted average number of Units outstanding. Per
Unit  information  has been computed based on 110,170 Units  outstanding in 1995
and 1994, and 110,200 Units outstanding in 1993.

Reclassifications
-----------------

Certain reclassifications have been made to prior period amounts to conform with
the current year presentation.

NOTE 2 - TRANSACTIONS WITH AFFILIATES
-------------------------------------

The  Partnership  pays property  management fees equal to 5% of the gross rental
receipts of the Partnership's properties to McNeil Real Estate Management,  Inc.
("McREMI"),  an  affiliate  of  the  General  Partner,  for  providing  property
management and leasing services for the Partnership's properties.

The  Partnership  reimburses  McREMI  for  its  costs,  including  overhead,  of
administering the Partnership's affairs.

The  Partnership  reimbursed  an  affiliate  of the  General  Partner  for costs
incurred in connection  with  refinancing  and  modification  of mortgage  notes
payable.  These costs are capitalized as deferred  borrowing costs and amortized
over the remaining term of the related mortgage notes.


<PAGE>

Under terms of the Amended  Partnership  Agreement,  the Partnership is paying a
Management  Incentive  Distribution  ("MID") to the General Partner. The maximum
MID is  calculated  as 1% of the tangible  asset value of the  Partnership.  The
maximum MID  percentage  decreases  subsequent to 1999.  Tangible asset value is
determined  by using the  greater  of (i) an amount  calculated  by  applying  a
capitalization  rate  of 9% to the  annualized  net  operating  income  of  each
property or (ii) a value of $10,000 per apartment unit to arrive at the property
tangible  asset value.  The property  tangible  asset value is then added to the
book value of all other  assets  excluding  intangible  items.  Prior to July 1,
1993,  the MID  consisted of two  components:  (i) the fixed  portion  which was
payable  without  respect to the net income of the  Partnership and was equal to
25% of the maximum MID (the "Fixed MID") and (ii) a contingent portion which was
payable only to the extent of the lesser of the Partnership's  excess cash flow,
as defined,  or net operating income (the "Entitlement  Amount") and is equal to
up to 75% of the maximum MID (the "Contingent MID").

Effective  July 1, 1993,  the General  Partner  amended the Amended  Partnership
Agreement as a settlement to a class action complaint. This amendment eliminates
the Fixed MID and makes the entire MID payable to the extent of the  Entitlement
Amount. In all other respects, the calculation and payment of the MID remain the
same.

Fixed MID was payable in Units unless the Entitlement Amount exceeded the amount
necessary  to pay the  Contingent  MID in which case,  at the General  Partner's
option, the Fixed MID was paid in cash to the extent of such excess.

Contingent MID will be paid to the extent of the Entitlement  Amount, and may be
paid (i) in cash,  unless there is insufficient  cash to pay the distribution in
which  event any  unpaid  portion  not taken in Units  will be  deferred  and is
payable, without interest, from the first available cash and/or (ii) in Units. A
maximum of 50% of the MID may be paid in Units.  The  number of Units  issued in
payment of the MID is based on the  greater of $50 per Unit or the net  tangible
asset value,  as defined,  per Unit.  During 1995,  1994 and 1993, no Units were
issued as payment for the MID.

During  1991,  the  Partnership  amended  its  capitalization  policy  and began
capitalizing  certain costs of improvements and betterments which under policies
of  prior  management  had been  expensed  when  incurred.  The  purpose  of the
amendment was to more properly recognize items which were capital in nature. The
effect of the amendment  standing alone was evaluated at the time the change was
made and  determined  not to be  material  to the  financial  statements  of the
Partnership  in 1991,  nor was it expected  to be  material in any future  year.
However,  the amendment  can have a material  effect on the  calculation  of the
Entitlement  Amount which determines the amount of Contingent MID earned and the
amount of Fixed MID payable in cash. Capital improvements are excluded from cash
flow, as defined.  The majority of base period cash flow was measured  under the
previous  capitalization  policy, while incentive period cash flow is determined
using the amended policy.  Under the amended policy, more items are capitalized,
and cash flow  increases.  Had base  period  cash flow been  measured on a basis
comparable with incentive  period cash flow,  Contingent MID for the years ended
December  31, 1995 and 1994,  would have been  reduced by $111,248  and 169,741,
respectively.  The  amendment of the  capitalization  policy did not  materially
affect the MID for 1993 because the  Entitlement  Amount was  sufficient  to pay
Contingent MID notwithstanding the amendment to the capitalization policy.

<PAGE>

Any  amount of the MID which is paid to the  General  Partner  in Units  will be
treated as if cash is distributed to the General Partner and is then contributed
to the  Partnership by the General  Partner.  The Fixed MID was treated as a fee
payable to the General  Partner by the Partnership  for services  rendered.  The
Contingent  MID  represents  a return  of  equity  to the  General  Partner  for
increasing cash flow, as defined, and accordingly is treated as a distribution.

Compensation and  reimbursements  paid or accrued for the benefit of the General
Partner or its affiliates are as follows:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                           For the Years Ended December 31,
                                                   ----------------------------------------------------
                                                        1995               1994               1993
                                                   --------------     --------------    ---------------
<S>                                                <C>                <C>               <C>            
Deferred borrowing costs...................        $            -     $            -    $        45,418
Property management fees -
   affiliates..............................               946,627            915,989            855,410
Charged to general and
   administrative - affiliates:
   Partnership administration..............               733,886            719,703            622,965
   Fixed MID...............................                     -                  -            114,720
                                                    -------------      -------------     --------------

                                                   $    1,680,513     $    1,635,692    $     1,638,513
                                                    =============      =============     ==============

Charged to General Partner's deficit:
   Contingent Management Incentive
     Distribution                                  $    1,070,763     $      973,023    $       807,867
                                                    =============      =============     ==============
</TABLE>

Payable to  affiliates - General  Partner at December 31, 1995 and 1994 consists
of Contingent MID, reimbursable costs and property management fees which are due
and payable from current operations.

NOTE 3 - TAXABLE LOSS
---------------------

McNeil Real Estate Fund IX, Ltd. is a partnership  and is not subject to Federal
and state income taxes.  Accordingly,  no  recognition  has been given to income
taxes in the  accompanying  financial  statements of the  Partnership  since the
income or loss of the  Partnership  is to be  included in the tax returns of the
individual  partners.  The  tax  returns  of  the  Partnership  are  subject  to
examination by Federal and state taxing authorities. If such examinations result
in  adjustments  to  distributive  shares of  taxable  income  or loss,  the tax
liability of the partners could be adjusted accordingly.

The  Partnership's  net assets and liabilities for tax purposes exceeded the net
assets and liabilities for financial  reporting  purposes by $9,613,062 in 1995,
$8,983,358 in 1994 and $8,766,818 in 1993.


<PAGE>

NOTE 4 - REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS
--------------------------------

The  basis  and  accumulated  depreciation  of  the  Partnership's  real  estate
investments at December 31, 1995 and 1994 are set forth in the following tables:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                    Buildings and       Accumulated           Net Book
       1995                         Land            Improvements        Depreciation            Value
       ----                    --------------      --------------      ---------------     --------------
<S>                            <C>                 <C>                 <C>                 <C>           
Berkley Hills
   Madison, TN                 $      246,988      $    5,914,125      $   (3,643,359)     $    2,517,754
Cherry Hills
   Wichita, KS                        514,205           8,771,156          (4,660,956)          4,624,405
Forest Park Village
   Columbus, OH                       716,395           8,891,627          (5,551,503)          4,056,519
Heather Square
   Dallas, TX                         853,746           7,294,403          (3,912,468)          4,235,681
Lantern Tree
   Omaha, NE                          217,809           3,245,613          (1,939,545)          1,523,877
Meridian West
   Puyallup, WA                       253,167           4,838,970          (2,538,764)          2,553,373
Pennbrook
   Dallas, TX                         692,515           6,068,091          (3,312,652)          3,447,954
Rockborough
   Addison, TX                        427,932           3,595,458          (1,866,840)          2,156,550
Rolling Hills
   Louisville, KY                     557,249           8,594,002          (5,050,846)          4,100,405
Ruskin Place
   Lincoln, NE                        920,061           4,975,901          (2,984,860)          2,911,102
Sheraton Hills
   Nashville, TN                      296,531           6,211,692          (3,910,764)          2,597,459
Westgate
   Lansing, MI                        390,482           6,093,518          (3,527,200)          2,956,800
Westridge
   Ft. Worth, TX                      345,265           4,269,089          (2,302,482)          2,311,872
Williamsburg
   Shreveport, LA                     283,754           5,083,649          (2,926,992)          2,440,411
                                -------------       -------------       -------------       -------------

                               $    6,716,099      $   83,847,294      $  (48,129,231)     $   42,434,162
                                =============       =============       =============       =============
</TABLE>

<PAGE>

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                    Buildings and       Accumulated           Net Book
       1994                         Land            Improvements        Depreciation            Value
       ----                    --------------      --------------      ---------------     --------------
<S>                            <C>                 <C>                 <C>                 <C>           
Berkley Hills                  $      246,988      $    5,617,461      $   (3,347,169)     $    2,517,280
Cherry Hills                          514,205           8,589,653          (4,318,464)          4,785,394
Forest Park Village                   716,395           8,446,693          (5,116,033)          4,047,055
Heather Square                        853,746           7,097,310          (3,600,447)          4,350,609
Lantern Tree                          217,809           3,133,808          (1,791,815)          1,559,802
Meridian West                         253,167           4,755,163          (2,290,739)          2,717,591
Pennbrook                             692,515           5,910,773          (3,018,815)          3,584,473
Rockborough                           427,932           3,527,790          (1,685,438)          2,270,284
Rolling Hills                         557,249           8,052,914          (4,599,161)          4,011,002
Ruskin Place                          920,061           4,771,531          (2,747,650)          2,943,942
Sheraton Hills                        296,531           5,887,264          (3,605,483)          2,578,312
Westgate                              390,482           5,616,778          (3,282,595)          2,724,665
Westridge                             345,265           4,060,462          (2,164,643)          2,241,084
Williamsburg                          283,754           4,921,016          (2,705,711)          2,499,059
                                -------------       -------------       -------------       -------------

                               $    6,716,099      $   80,388,616      $  (44,274,163)     $   42,830,552
                                =============       =============       =============       =============
</TABLE>

NOTE 5 - MORTGAGE NOTES PAYABLE
-------------------------------

The table below sets forth the  mortgage  notes  payable of the  Partnership  at
December  31,  1995 and 1994.  All  mortgage  notes are  secured by real  estate
investments.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                         Mortgage           Annual       Monthly
                         Lien               Interest     Payments/                         December 31,
Property                 Position    (a)    Rates %      Maturity Date(e)             1995               1994
--------                 ---------------    --------     ----------------      --------------     --------------
<S>                      <C>                  <C>        <C>       <C>         <C>                <C>           
Berkley Hills            First                8.750      $26,005   12/23       $    3,255,924     $    3,281,849
                                                                                -------------      -------------

Cherry Hills             First                8.150       39,353   07/03            4,748,209          4,829,752
                         Discount (b)                                                (114,168)          (126,376)
                                                                                -------------      -------------
                                                                                    4,634,041          4,703,376
                                                                                -------------      -------------
</TABLE>

<PAGE>

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                         Mortgage            Annual      Monthly
                         Lien                Interest    Payments/                       December 31,
Property                 Position    (a)     Rates %     Maturity Date(e)              1995               1994
--------                 ---------------    --------    ----------------         -------------     --------------
<S>                      <C>                  <C>        <C>       <C>         <C>                <C>           
Forest Park Village      First                9.125      $59,732   01/98       $    6,192,845     $    6,325,750
                                                                                -------------      -------------

Heather Square           First                9.625       38,250   03/09            3,429,615          3,552,038
                                                                                -------------      -------------

Lantern Tree             First                8.150       20,416   07/03            2,463,353          2,505,657
                         Discount (b)                                                 (59,231)           (65,563)
                                                                                --------------     -------------
                                                                                    2,404,122          2,440,094
                                                                                -------------      -------------

Meridian West            First                8.150       28,471   07/03            3,435,223          3,494,217
                         Discount (b)                                                 (82,599)           (91,430)
                                                                                -------------      -------------
                                                                                    3,352,624          3,402,787
                                                                                -------------      -------------

Pennbrook                First                9.450       27,209   02/00            3,187,297          3,209,439
                                                                                -------------      -------------

Rockborough              First                8.150       18,789   07/03            2,267,055          2,305,987
                         Discount (b)                                                 (54,511)           (60,339)
                                                                                -------------      -------------
                                                                                    2,212,544          2,245,648
                                                                                -------------      -------------

Rolling Hills            First                9.250       55,389   11/24            6,685,297          6,729,342
                                                                                -------------      -------------

Ruskin Place             First                8.750       36,348   10/24            4,581,309          4,615,005
                                                                                -------------      -------------

Sheraton Hills           First (c)             (d)           (d)   10/98            2,838,674          2,880,859
                                                                                -------------      -------------

Westgate                 First                8.000       44,114   09/23            5,893,110          5,948,596
                                                                                -------------      -------------

Williamsburg             First                8.150       23,128   07/03            2,790,518          2,838,440
                         Discount (b)                                                 (67,098)           (74,271)
                                                                                -------------      -------------
                                                                                    2,723,420          2,764,169
                                                                                -------------      -------------

                                                       Total                   $   51,390,822     $   52,098,952
                                                                                =============      =============
</TABLE>


<PAGE>

(a)  The debt is non-recourse to the Partnership.

(b)  Mortgage discounts are based on an effective interest rate of 8.62%.

(c)  The mortgage  encumbering  Sheraton Hills  Apartments  contains  provisions
     which may give the lender the right to  accelerate  the mortgage  debt as a
     result of the November  12, 1991,  restructuring  of the  Partnership.  The
     General Partner has requested that the lender waive its right to accelerate
     the mortgage debt. The lender may require the payment of fees or additional
     interest as a condition to granting such a waiver.  In the event the waiver
     is not obtained and the mortgage debt is accelerated, the Partnership would
     be  required  to satisfy  the  outstanding  mortgage  debt,  which  totaled
     $2,838,674  at December  31,  1995.  In such event,  the  Partnership  will
     attempt to arrange alternative sources of mortgage financing. However, such
     refinancing  may be at an interest  rate which is higher or is otherwise on
     terms  which are less  favorable  than those  provided  for by the  current
     mortgage.  Furthermore,  if alternative  financing cannot be obtained,  the
     lender could foreclose on Sheraton Hills  Apartments.  Management  believes
     the likelihood of this outcome is remote and  accordingly has not reflected
     this balance as currently due.

(d)  The  Sheraton  Hills  mortgage  note bears  interest  at a  variable  rate,
     adjusted at six-month intervals equal to the six-month treasury bill weekly
     average  rate plus 3.0% per annum,  not to exceed  12.75%  per  annum.  The
     monthly  payment is also adjusted each six months so that the mortgage note
     will fully  amortize over a period of 30 years.  At December 31, 1995,  the
     interest rate was 8.63%, and the monthly payment was $23,748.

(e)  Balloon payments on the Partnership's mortgage notes are due as follows:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

       Property                                    Balloon Payment     Date
       --------                                    ---------------     ----
<S>                                                   <C>              <C>  
       Forest Park Village ....................       $ 5,831,000      01/98
       Sheraton Hills      ....................         2,661,000      10/98
       Pennbrook           ....................         3,059,000      02/00
       Cherry Hills        ....................         3,875,000      07/03
       Lantern Tree        ....................         2,010,000      07/03
       Meridian West       ....................         2,804,000      07/03
       Rockborough         ....................         1,850,000      07/03
       Williamsburg        ....................         2,278,000      07/03
</TABLE>

Scheduled  principal  maturities of the mortgage  notes  payable under  existing
agreements, before consideration of discounts of $377,607, are shown below.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

        <S>                                           <C>      
        1996....................................      $   826,951
        1997....................................          902,235
        1998....................................        9,358,326
        1999....................................          812,434
        2000....................................        3,912,038
        Thereafter..............................       35,956,445
                                                       ----------
                                                      $51,768,429
                                                       ==========
</TABLE>

<PAGE>

Based on borrowing  rates  currently  available to the  Partnership for mortgage
loans with similar terms and average maturities,  the fair value of the mortgage
notes payable was approximately $52,256,304 at December 31, 1995.

NOTE 6 - REFINANCING AND MODIFICATION OF MORTGAGE NOTES PAYABLE
---------------------------------------------------------------

On July 28, 1994, the  Partnership  and the holder of the Berkley Hills mortgage
note agreed to modify the terms of the Berkley Hills mortgage note. The interest
rate was reduced to 8.75% from 10%,  and the monthly  debt  service  payment was
reduced to $26,005 from $28,283. In addition, the Partnership agreed to increase
the principal  balance of the mortgage note $74,108 to $3,290,000,  the mortgage
note's original balance.  The Partnership incurred $46,254 of deferred borrowing
costs in connection with the  modification,  and the default that existed on the
mortgage note was removed.

On July 28, 1994,  the  Partnership  and the holder of the Ruskin Place mortgage
note agreed to modify the terms of the Ruskin Place  mortgage note. The interest
rate was reduced to 8.75% from 9.75%,  and the monthly debt service  payment was
reduced to $36,348 from $38,882. In addition, the Partnership agreed to increase
the principal  balance of the mortgage note $87,701 to $4,625,600,  the mortgage
note's original balance.  The Partnership incurred $66,734 of deferred borrowing
costs in connection with the  modification,  and the default that existed on the
mortgage note was removed.

On June 30, 1993, the Partnership  and the holder of the Westgate  mortgage note
agreed to modify the terms of the Westgate  mortgage note. The interest rate was
reduced to 8% from 10.5%,  and the monthly debt  service  payment was reduced to
$44,114  from  $54,068.  In  addition,  the  Partnership  agreed to increase the
principal  balance of the mortgage  note  $102,356 to  $6,020,000,  the mortgage
note's original balance. The Partnership incurred $109,473 of deferred borrowing
costs in connection with the  modification,  and the default that existed on the
mortgage note was removed.

On June 24, 1993, the General Partner refinanced a portfolio of properties via a
Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit ("REMIC"). This REMIC consists of a pool
of properties from various  partnerships  affiliated  with the General  Partner.
Five of the Partnership's properties, Cherry Hills, Lantern Tree, Meridian West,
Rockborough and Williamsburg,  were included in the REMIC. The properties in the
REMIC  are  not   cross-collateralized   across   the   partnerships,   but  are

<PAGE>

cross-collateralized within the same partnership. The new mortgage notes bear an
interest rate of 8.15% that was  discounted to yield an effective  interest rate
of 8.62%.  The maturity date for the new mortgage notes is July 2003.  Following
is a summary of the cash proceeds relating to the REMIC refinancings:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                               Cherry Hills              Lantern Tree               Meridian West
                                            ------------------         -----------------         ------------------
     <S>                                    <C>                        <C>                       <C>              
     New loan proceeds                      $       4,934,500          $      2,560,000          $       3,570,000
     Existing debt retired                         (3,003,554)               (1,587,353)                (2,103,963)
     Mortgage discount                               (143,390)                  (74,390)                  (103,739)
     Prepayment penalties                                   -                         -                    (21,040)
                                             ----------------           ---------------           ----------------

     Cash proceeds from refinancing         $       1,787,556          $        898,257          $       1,341,258
                                             ================           ===============           ================

                                               Rockborough                Williamsburg                  Total
                                            ------------------         -----------------         ------------------

     New loan proceeds                      $       2,356,000          $      2,900,000          $      16,320,500
     Existing debt retired                         (1,487,544)               (2,208,551)               (10,390,965)
     Mortgage discount                                (68,462)                  (84,270)                  (474,251)
     Prepayment penalties                             (44,626)                        -                    (65,666)
                                             ----------------           ---------------           ----------------

     Cash proceeds from refinancing         $         755,368          $        607,179          $       5,389,618
                                             ================           ===============           ================
</TABLE>

As part of the REMIC refinancing, the Partnership negotiated a discounted payoff
on the Williamsburg second mortgage note,  resulting in a $34,611  extraordinary
gain on extinguishment of debt. The Partnership  incurred  extraordinary  losses
due to  prepayment  penalties  of $21,040 and $44,626 on the  Meridian  West and
Rockborough mortgage notes, respectively.

The Partnership incurred $892,580 of deferred borrowing costs in connection with
the  REMIC  refinancing.  Additionally,  the  Partnership  was  required  to use
$534,018 of its loan  proceeds to fund various  escrow  accounts  for  specified
capital repairs, property taxes and insurance.

On January 29, 1993, the Partnership refinanced the Pennbrook mortgage note. The
new Pennbrook  mortgage note, in the amount of $3,250,000,  bears interest at an
annual rate of 9.45%,  requires  monthly debt service  payments of $27,209,  and
will mature in February  2000.  Proceeds from the  refinancing  of the Pennbrook
mortgage note are as follows:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

        <S>                                                   <C>       
         New mortgage note...........................         $     3,250,000
         Existing debt retired.......................              (2,459,747)
                                                               --------------

         Cash proceeds from refinancing..............         $       790,253
                                                               ==============
</TABLE>


<PAGE>

The Partnership incurred $201,439 of deferred borrowing costs in connection with
the  refinancing  of the  Pennbrook  mortgage  note.  The  Partnership  was also
required to use  $266,715  of its loan  proceeds  to fund  escrow  accounts  for
property taxes, insurance, repairs and replacements.

NOTE 7 - GAIN ON INVOLUNTARY CONVERSIONS
----------------------------------------

On May 5, 1995,  Westridge  Apartments  incurred  hail damage of  $150,938.  The
Partnership  received $144,666 in insurance  reimbursements to cover the cost to
repair Westridge.  Insurance  reimbursements  received in excess of the basis of
the property damaged were recorded as a $109,006 gain on involuntary conversion.

On November 3, 1995, two units at Cherry Hill  Apartments were damaged by a fire
that caused $55,495 in damages.  The Partnership  received  $40,428 in insurance
reimbursements to cover the cost to repair Cherry Hill. Insurance reimbursements
received  in excess of the  basis of the  property  damage  were  recorded  as a
$16,961 gain on involuntary conversion.

On January 19, 1994, freezing weather caused $157,680 of damage to Rolling Hills
Apartments.  The Partnership  received  $140,496 in insurance  reimbursements to
cover the cost to repair Rolling  Hills.  Insurance  reimbursements  received in
excess of the basis of the property  damaged were recorded as a $108,522 gain on
involuntary conversion.

On April 25, 1994, eleven units at Rockborough Apartments were damaged by a fire
that caused $225,123 in damages.  The Partnership received $219,382 in insurance
reimbursements to cover the cost to repair Rockborough. Insurance reimbursements
received  in excess of the  basis of the  property  damage  were  recorded  as a
$79,332 gain on involuntary conversion.

NOTE 8 - LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
--------------------------

The Partnership is not party to, nor are any of the Partnership's properties the
subject of, any material pending legal proceedings, other than ordinary, routine
litigation incidental to the Partnership's business, except for the following:

1)   High River Limited Partnership v. McNeil Partners,  L.P., McNeil Investors,
     Inc., McNeil Pacific Investors 1972, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund V, Ltd.,
     McNeil Real Estate Fund IX, Ltd.,  McNeil Real Estate Fund X, Ltd.,  McNeil
     Real Estate Fund XI, Ltd.,  McNeil Real Estate Fund XIV, Ltd.,  McNeil Real
     Estate Fund XV, Ltd.,  McNeil Real Estate Fund XX, L.P., McNeil Real Estate
     Fund XXIV,  L.P.,  McNeil Real Estate Fund XXV, L.P.,  Robert A. McNeil and
     Carole J.  McNeil  (L95012) - High River  ("HR")  filed this  action in the
     United States District Court for the Southern  District of New York against
     McNeil Partners,  L.P., McNeil Investors,  Inc. and Mr. and Mrs. McNeil (as
     defined in this  Section 1,  collectively,  the  "Defendants")  requesting,
     among other  things,  names and  addresses  of the limited  partners in the
     partnerships   referenced   above  (as  defined  in  this  Section  1,  the
     "Partnerships"). The District Court issued a preliminary injunction against
     the Partnerships  requiring them to commence mailing materials  relating to
     the HR tender offer on August 14, 1995.


<PAGE>

     On August 18, 1995, the Defendants  filed an Answer and  Counterclaim.  The
     Counterclaim  principally  asserts  (1)  the HR  tender  offers  have  been
     undertaken  in violation of the federal  securities  laws,  on the basis of
     material,  non-public,  and confidential  information,  and (2) that the HR
     offer documents omit and/or misrepresent certain material information about
     the HR tender offers.  The  Counterclaim  seeks a preliminary and permanent
     injunction   against  the   continuation  of  the  HR  tender  offers  and,
     alternatively,  ordering  corrective  disclosure  with respect to allegedly
     false and misleading statements contained in the tender offer documents.

     This action was dismissed without prejudice in November 1995.

2)   High River Limited Partnership v. McNeil Partners,  L.P., McNeil Investors,
     Inc., McNeil Pacific Investors 1972, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund V, Ltd.,
     McNeil Real Estate Fund IX, Ltd.,  McNeil Real Estate Fund X, Ltd.,  McNeil
     Real Estate Fund XI, Ltd.,  McNeil Real Estate Fund XIV, Ltd.,  McNeil Real
     Estate Fund XV, Ltd.,  McNeil Real Estate Fund XX, L.P., McNeil Real Estate
     Fund XXIV,  L.P.,  McNeil Real Estate Fund XXV, L.P.,  Robert A. McNeil and
     Carole J. McNeil - United States  District Court for the Southern  District
     of New York, (Case No. 95 Civ. 9488) (Second Action).

     On November 7, 1995, High River filed a second  complaint with the District
     Court which alleges, inter alia, that McNeil Partners, L.P.'s (the "General
     Partner")  Schedule  14D-9 filed in  connection  with the High River tender
     offers was materially false and misleading,  in violation of Sections 14(d)
     and 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C.  Section 78n(d)
     and (e),  and the SEC  Regulations  promulgated  thereunder;  and that High
     River further  alleges that the General  Partner has wrongfully  refused to
     admit High River as a limited  partner to the ten  partnerships  referenced
     above.  Additionally,  High River purports to assert claims derivatively on
     behalf of McNeil  Real Estate  Fund IX,  Ltd.,  McNeil Real Estate Fund XI,
     Ltd.,  McNeil Real Estate Fund XV, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XXIV, L.P.
     and McNeil Real Estate Fund XXV, L.P., for breach of contract and breach of
     fiduciary  duty,  asserting  that the General  Partner  has  charged  these
     partnerships  excessive fees.  High River's  complaint  seeks,  inter alia,
     preliminary  injunctive  relief requiring the General Partner to admit High
     River as a limited partner in each of the ten partnerships referenced above
     and to transfer the tendered units of interest in the  partnerships to High
     River;  an  unspecified  award of  damages  payable  to High  River  and an
     additional   unspecified  award  of  damages  payable  to  certain  of  the
     partnerships;  an order that  defendants  must  discharge  their  fiduciary
     duties and must account for all fees they have received from certain of the
     partnerships; and attorneys' fees.

     On January 31, 1996, this action was dismissed without prejudice.

3)   Robert Lewis v. McNeil Partners,  L.P., McNeil  Investors,  Inc., Robert A.
     McNeil  et al - In the  District  Court of  Dallas  County,  Texas,  A-14th
     Judicial  District,  Cause No. 95-08535 (Class Action) - Plaintiff,  Robert
     Lewis, is a limited partner with McNeil Pacific  Investors Fund 1972, Ltd.,
     McNeil Real Estate Fund X, Ltd. and McNeil Real Estate Fund XV, Ltd.

     Plaintiff  brings  this  action on his own behalf and as a class  action on
     behalf of the class of all  limited  partners of McNeil  Pacific  Investors
     Fund 1972, Ltd.,  McNeil Real Estate Fund V, Ltd.,  McNeil Real Estate Fund
     IX,  Ltd.,  McNeil Real  Estate  Fund X, Ltd.,  McNeil Real Estate Fund XI,
     Ltd.,  McNeil Real Estate Fund XIV, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XV, Ltd.,
     McNeil Real Estate Fund XX,  L.P.,  McNeil Real Estate Fund XXIV,  L.P. and
     McNeil  Real  Estate  Fund XXV,  Ltd.  (as  defined in this  Section 3, the
     "Partnerships") as of August 4, 1995.


<PAGE>

     Plaintiff  alleges that McNeil  Partners,  L.P.,  McNeil  Investors,  Inc.,
     Robert A. McNeil and other  senior  officers (as defined in this Section 3,
     collectively,  the "Defendants")  breached their fiduciary duties by, among
     other things,  (1) failing to attempt to sell the  properties  owned by the
     Partnerships (as defined in this Section 3, the "Properties") and extending
     the lives of the Partnerships  indefinitely,  contrary to the Partnerships'
     business plans, (2) paying  distributions to themselves and generating fees
     for their affiliates, (3) refusing to make significant distributions to the
     class members,  despite the fact that the  Partnerships  have positive cash
     flows and  substantial  cash  balances,  and (4)  failing  to take steps to
     create an auction market for equity interests of the Partnerships,  despite
     the fact that a third party bidder filed  tender  offers for  approximately
     forty-five   percent  (45%)  of  the  outstanding  units  of  each  of  the
     Partnerships.  Plaintiff  also claims that  Defendants  have  breached  the
     partnership  agreements  of the  Partnerships  by  failing to take steps to
     liquidate  the  Properties  and by their  alteration  of the  Partnerships'
     primary  purposes,  their acts in  contravention of these  agreements,  and
     their use of the assets of the  Partnerships  for their own benefit instead
     of for the benefit of the Partnerships.

     The Defendants deny that there is any merit to Plaintiff's  allegations and
     intend to vigorously defend this action.

4)   James F.  Schofield,  Gerald C.  Gillett  and Donna S.  Gillett  v.  McNeil
     Partners,  L.P.,  McNeil Investors,  Inc.,  McNeil Real Estate  Management,
     Inc., Robert A. McNeil,  Carole J. McNeil, McNeil Real Estate Fund V, Ltd.,
     McNeil Real Estate Fund IX, Ltd.,  McNeil Real Estate Fund X, Ltd.,  McNeil
     Real Estate Fund XI, Ltd.,  McNeil Real Estate Fund XIV, Ltd.,  McNeil Real
     Estate Fund XV, Ltd.,  McNeil Real Estate Fund XX, L.P., McNeil Real Estate
     Fund XXIV,  L.P.,  McNeil Real Estate Fund XXV, L.P. et al - Superior Court
     of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC133799
     (Class and Derivative  Action  Complaint) and United States District Court,
     Southern  District of New York, Case No.  95CIV.6711  (Class and Derivative
     Action Complaint)

     These are  corporate/securities  class and  derivative  actions  brought in
     state and federal court by limited partners of each of the nine (9) limited
     partnerships  that are named as  nominal  defendants  as  listed  above (as
     defined in this  Section 4, the  "Partnerships").  Plaintiffs  allege  that
     McNeil Investors,  Inc., its affiliate McNeil Real Estate Management,  Inc.
     and four (4) of their senior officers and/or  directors (as defined in this
     Section 4,  collectively,  the "Defendants")  have breached their fiduciary
     duties.  Specifically,  Plaintiffs  allege that  Defendants have caused the
     Partnerships  to enter  into  several  wasteful  transactions  that have no
     business  purpose or benefit to the  Partnerships  and which have  rendered
     such units highly illiquid and  artificially  depressed the prices that are
     available for units on the limited  resale market.  Plaintiffs  also allege
     that  Defendants  have  engaged  in a course  of  conduct  to  prevent  the
     acquisition of units by Carl Icahn by disseminating  false,  misleading and
     inadequate  information.  Plaintiffs  further allege that  Defendants  have
     acted to  advance  their  own  personal  interests  at the  expense  of the
     Partnerships' public unit holders by failing to sell Partnership properties
     and  failing  to make  distributions  to  unitholders  and,  thereby,  have
     breached the partnership agreements.

     The Defendants deny that there is any merit to Plaintiff's  allegations and
     intend to vigorously defend these actions.


<PAGE>

5)   Alfred Napoletano v. McNeil Partners, L.P., McNeil Investors,  Inc., Robert
     A. McNeil,  Carole J. McNeil,  McNeil Pacific  Investors  Fund 1972,  Ltd.,
     McNeil Real Estate Fund V, Ltd.,  McNeil Real Estate Fund IX, Ltd.,  McNeil
     Real Estate Fund X, Ltd.,  McNeil  Real Estate Fund XI,  Ltd.,  McNeil Real
     Estate Fund XIV, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XV, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate
     Fund XX, L.P.,  McNeil Real Estate Fund XXIV, L.P., McNeil Real Estate Fund
     XXV,  L.P.  -  Superior  Court of the  State of  California,  County of Los
     Angeles, Case No. BC133849 (Class Action Complaint)

     Plaintiff  brings this class action on behalf of a class of all persons and
     entities who are current owners of units and/or are limited partners in one
     or more of the partnerships referenced above (as defined in this Section 5,
     the "Partnerships").  Plaintiff alleges that McNeil Partners,  L.P., McNeil
     Investors,  Inc., Robert A. McNeil and other senior officers (as defined in
     this  Section  5,  collectively,  the  "Defendants")  have  breached  their
     fiduciary  duties to the class members by, among other  things,  (1) taking
     steps to prevent the  consummation  of the High River  tender  offers,  (2)
     failing to take steps to maximize unitholders' or limited partners' values,
     including  failure to liquidate the properties  owned by the  Partnerships,
     (3) managing the Partnerships so as to extend  indefinitely the present fee
     arrangements,  and (4) paying itself and entities  owned and  controlled by
     the  general  partner  excessive  fees and  reimbursements  of general  and
     administrative expenses.

     The Defendants deny that there is any merit to Plaintiff's  allegations and
     intend to vigorously defend this action.

6)   Warren Heller v. McNeil Partners,  L.P., McNeil Investors,  Inc., Robert A.
     McNeil,  Carole J. McNeil, McNeil Pacific Investors Fund 1972, Ltd., McNeil
     Real Estate Fund V, Ltd.,  McNeil  Real Estate Fund IX,  Ltd.,  McNeil Real
     Estate Fund X, Ltd.,  McNeil Real Estate Fund XI, Ltd.,  McNeil Real Estate
     Fund XIV, Ltd.,  McNeil Real Estate Fund XV, Ltd.,  McNeil Real Estate Fund
     XX, L.P.,  McNeil Real Estate Fund XXIV, L.P., McNeil Real Estate Fund XXV,
     L.P. - Superior  Court of the State of  California,  County of Los Angeles,
     Case No. BC133957 (Class Action Complaint)

     Plaintiff  brings this class action on behalf of a class of all persons and
     entities who are current owners of units and/or are limited partners in one
     or more of the partnerships referenced above (as defined in this Section 6,
     the "Partnerships").  Plaintiff alleges that McNeil Partners,  L.P., McNeil
     Investors,  Inc., Robert A. McNeil and other senior officers (as defined in
     this  Section  6,  collectively,  the  "Defendants")  have  breached  their
     fiduciary  duties to the class members by, among other  things,  (1) taking
     steps to prevent the  consummation  of the High River  tender  offers,  (2)
     failing to take steps to maximize unitholders' or limited partners' values,
     including  failure to liquidate the properties  owned by the  Partnerships,
     (3) managing the Partnerships so as to extend  indefinitely the present fee
     arrangements,  and (4) paying itself and entities  owned and  controlled by
     the  general  partner  excessive  fees and  reimbursements  of general  and
     administrative expenses.

     The Defendants deny that there is any merit to Plaintiff's  allegations and
     intend to vigorously defend this action.


<PAGE>

7)   HCW Pension Real Estate Fund, Ltd. et al. v. Ernst & Young , BDO Seidman et
     al (Case #92-06560-A). This suit was filed on behalf of the Partnership and
     other affiliated  partnerships  (the "Affiliated  Partnerships") on May 26,
     1992, in the 14th Judicial  District Court of Dallas  County.  The petition
     sought recovery against the Partnership's former auditors, BDO Seidman, for
     negligence  and fraud in failing to detect  and/or  report  overcharges  of
     fees/expenses by Southmark, the former general partner. The former auditors
     asserted counterclaims against the Affiliated Partnerships based on alleged
     fraudulent misrepresentations made to the auditors by the former management
     of  the  Affiliated   Partnerships   (Southmark)  in  the  form  of  client
     representation  letters executed and delivered to the auditors by Southmark
     management.  The counterclaims sought recovery of attorneys' fees and costs
     incurred in defending  this  action.  The  original  petition  also alleged
     causes of action  against  certain  former  officers  and  directors of the
     Partnership's  original general partner for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud
     and conspiracy  relating to the improper  assessment and payment of certain
     administrative  fees/expenses.  On January 11, 1994 the allegations against
     the former officers and directors were dismissed.

     The trial court granted summary  judgment in favor of Ernst & Young and BDO
     Seidman  on the  fraud  and  negligence  claims  based  on the  statute  of
     limitations.  The Affiliated  Partnerships appealed the summary judgment to
     the Dallas Court of Appeals.  In August 1995,  the Appeals Court upheld all
     of the summary  judgments  in favor of BDO  Seidman.  In  exchange  for the
     plaintiff's  agreement  not to file any  motions for  rehearing  or further
     appeals,  BDO  Seidman  agreed  that it will not pursue  the  counterclaims
     against the Partnership.

NOTE 9 - GAIN ON LEGAL SETTLEMENT
---------------------------------

The  Partnership  filed claims with the United States  Bankruptcy  Court for the
Northern  District of Texas,  Dallas Division (the  "Bankruptcy  Court") against
Southmark Corporation ("Southmark"), an affiliate of a previous general partner,
for damages relating to improper  overcharges,  breach of contract and breach of
fiduciary  duty.  The  Partnership  settled  these  claims  in  1991,  and  such
settlement was approved by the Bankruptcy Court.

An Order Granting  Motion to Distribute  Funds to Class 8 Claimants  dated April
14, 1995, was issued by the Bankruptcy  Court.  In accordance with the Order, in
May 1995, the Partnership  received in full satisfaction of its claims,  $53,573
in cash, and common and preferred stock in the reorganized  Southmark.  The cash
and  stock  represent  the  Partnership's  pro-rata  share of  Southmark  assets
available for Class 8 claimants.  The Partnership  sold the Southmark common and
preferred  stock in May 1995,  for $17,244  which,  when  combined with the cash
proceeds from Southmark, resulted in a gain on legal settlement of $70,817.

<PAGE>
                        McNEIL REAL ESTATE FUND IX, LTD.
                                  SCHEDULE III
              REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS AND ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION
                                December 31, 1995

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                  Cumulative           Costs
                                                       Initial Cost (b)            Write-down       Capitalized
                          Related (b)                         Buildings and     and Permanent       Subsequent
Description               Encumbrances         Land           Improvements        Impairment       To Acquisition
-----------               ---------------    --------------   ---------------   --------------    ----------------
APARTMENTS:

<S>                       <C>                <C>               <C>               <C>              <C>           
Berkley Hills
   Madison, TN            $     3,255,924    $      246,988    $    4,779,121    $           -    $    1,135,004

Cherry Hills
   Wichita, KS                  4,634,041           514,205         7,373,589                -         1,397,567

Forest Park Village
   Columbus, OH                 6,192,845           716,395         7,095,131                -         1,796,496

Heather Square
   Dallas, TX                   3,429,615           853,746         6,087,281                -         1,207,122

Lantern Tree
   Omaha, NE                    2,404,122           217,809         2,467,872                -           777,741

Meridian West
   Puyallup, WA                 3,352,624           253,167         3,787,807                -         1,051,163

Pennbrook
   Dallas, TX                   3,187,297           692,515         4,708,479                -         1,359,612

Rockborough
   Addison, TX                  2,212,544           427,932         2,924,451                -           671,007

Rolling Hills
   Louisville, KY               6,685,297           557,249         6,156,595                -         2,437,407

Ruskin Place
   Lincoln, NE                  4,581,309           899,372         3,792,676                -         1,203,914

Sheraton Hills
   Nashville, TX                2,838,674           296,531         4,819,251                -         1,392,441

Westgate
   Lansing, MI                  5,893,110           390,482         4,963,710                -         1,129,808

Westridge
   Fort Worth, TX                       -           345,265         3,736,843         (200,000)          732,246

Williamsburg
   Shreveport, LA               2,723,420           283,754         4,203,172                -           880,477
                           --------------    --------------    --------------     ------------     -------------

                          $    51,390,822   $     6,695,410   $    66,895,978    $    (200,000)   $   17,172,005
                           ==============    ==============    ==============     ============     =============
</TABLE>

(b)  The initial cost and encumbrances  reflect the present value of future loan
     payments  discounted,  if  appropriate,  at a  rate  estimated  to  be  the
     prevailing interest rate at the date of acquisition or refinancing.

                     See accompanying notes to Schedule III.

<PAGE>
                        McNEIL REAL ESTATE FUND IX, LTD.
                                  SCHEDULE III
              REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS AND ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION
                                December 31, 1995

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                            Gross Amount at
                                     Which Carried at Close of Period                  Accumulated
                                                 Buildings and                         Depreciation
Description                      Land            Improvements          Total (a)      and Amortization
-----------                  ---------------    ---------------  -----------------    ----------------

APARTMENTS:
<S>                          <C>                <C>              <C>                  <C>            
Berkley Hills
   Madison, TX               $       246,988    $     5,914,125  $       6,161,113    $   (3,643,359)

Cherry Hills
   Wichita, KS                       514,205          8,771,156          9,285,361        (4,660,956)

Forest Park Village
   Columbus, OH                      716,395          8,891,627          9,608,022        (5,551,503)

Heather Square
   Dallas, TX                        853,746          7,294,403          8,148,149        (3,912,468)

Lantern Tree
   Omaha, NE                         217,809          3,245,613          3,463,422        (1,939,545)

Meridian West
   Puyallup, WA                      253,167          4,838,970          5,092,137        (2,538,764)

Pennbrook
   Dallas, TX                        692,515          6,068,091          6,760,606        (3,312,652)

Rockborough
   Addison, TX                       427,932          3,595,458          4,023,390        (1,866,840)

Rolling Hills
   Louisville, KY                    557,249          8,594,002          9,151,251        (5,050,846)

Ruskin Place
   Lincoln, NE                       920,061          4,975,901          5,895,962        (2,984,860)

Sheraton Hills
   Nashville, TN                     296,531          6,211,692          6,508,223        (3,910,764)

Westgate
   Lansing, MI                       390,482          6,093,518          6,484,000        (3,527,200)

Westridge
   Fort Worth, TX                    345,265          4,269,089          4,614,354        (2,302,482)

Williamsburg
   Shreveport, LA                    283,754          5,083,649          5,367,403        (2,926,992)
                              --------------     --------------   ----------------     -------------
                             $     6,716,099    $    83,847,294  $      90,563,393    $  (48,129,231)
                              ==============     ==============   ================     =============
</TABLE>

(a)  For Federal income tax purposes,  the properties are depreciated over lives
     ranging from 15-25 years using ACRS or MACRS methods. The aggregate cost of
     real estate  investments for Federal income tax purposes was  approximately
     $94,274,869 and accumulated depreciation was $49,976,438 December 31, 1995.

                     See accompanying notes to Schedule III.


<PAGE>
                        McNEIL REAL ESTATE FUND IX, LTD.
                                  SCHEDULE III
              REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS AND ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION
                                December 31, 1995


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                               Date of                      Date                 Depreciable
Description                 Construction                  Acquired              lives (years)
-----------                 ------------                  --------              -------------

APARTMENTS:
<S>                             <C>                         <C>                     <C> 
Berkley Hills
   Madison, TN                  1970                        06/79                   3-25

Cherry Hills
   Wichita, KS                  1974                        06/80                   3-32

Forest Park Village
   Columbus, OH                 1970                        12/79                   3-25

Heather Square
   Dallas, TX                   1978                        10/79                   4-32

Lantern Tree
   Omaha, NE                    1974                        07/79                   3-28

Meridian West
   Puyallup, WA                 1977                        01/80                   3-31

Pennbrook
   Dallas, TX                   1978                        01/80                   3-31

Rockborough
   Addison, TX                  1978                        01/80                   3-32

Rolling Hills
   Louisville, KY               1974                        09/79                   3-25

Ruskin Place
   Lincoln, NE                  1973                        12/79                   3-27

Sheraton Hills
   Nashville, TN                1971                        06/79                   3-25

Westgate
   Lansing, MI                  1974                        12/79                   3-28

Westridge
   Fort Worth, TX               1979                        01/80                   4-32

Williamsburg
   Shreveport, LA               1975                        12/79                   3-29

</TABLE>


                     See accompanying notes to Schedule III.

<PAGE>
                        McNEIL REAL ESTATE FUND IX, LTD.

                              Notes to Schedule III

              Real Estate Investments and Accumulated Depreciation


A  summary  of  activity  for the  Partnership's  real  estate  investments  and
accumulated depreciation is as follows:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                            For the Years Ended December 31,
                                                   ----------------------------------------------------
                                                        1995               1994               1993
                                                   --------------     --------------     --------------

Real estate investments:
------------------------
<S>                                                <C>                <C>                <C>           
Balance at beginning of year...............        $   87,104,715     $   83,199,845     $   80,527,075

Improvements...............................             3,582,582          4,261,449          2,672,770

Assets replaced............................              (123,904)          (356,579)                 -
                                                    -------------      -------------     --------------

Balance at end of year.....................        $   90,563,393     $   87,104,715    $    83,199,845
                                                    =============     ==============     ==============



Accumulated depreciation:
-------------------------

Balance at beginning of year...............        $   44,274,163     $   41,065,883    $    38,049,009

Depreciation...............................             3,919,845          3,392,835          3,016,874

Assets replaced............................               (64,777)          (184,555)                 -
                                                    -------------      -------------     --------------

Balance at end of year.....................        $   48,129,231     $   44,274,163    $    41,065,883
                                                    =============      =============     ==============
</TABLE>



<PAGE>
ITEM 9.       CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND
-------       ---------------------------------------------------------------
              FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE
              --------------------

None.


                                    PART III

ITEM 10.      DIRECTORS AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE REGISTRANT
--------      --------------------------------------------------

Neither the  Partnership  nor the General Partner has any directors or executive
officers.  The names and ages of, as well as the positions held by, the officers
and  directors of McNeil  Investors,  Inc.,  the general  partner of the General
Partner, are as follows:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                       Other Principal Occupations and Other
Name and Position             Age      Directorships During the Past 5 Years
-----------------             ---      -------------------------------------
<S>                            <C>      <C>
Robert A. McNeil,              75       Mr.  McNeil  is also  Chairman  of the Board and  Director  of McNeil  Real
Chairman of the                         Estate  Management,  Inc.  ("McREMI")  which is an affiliate of the General
Board and Director                      Partner.  He has held the foregoing  positions  since the formation of such
                                        entity  in  1990.  Mr.  McNeil  received  his  B.A.  degree  from  Stanford
                                        University  in 1942 and his  L.L.B.  degree  from  Stanford  Law  School in
                                        1948. He is a member of the State Bar of  California  and has been involved
                                        in  real  estate  financing  since  the  late  1940's  and in  real  estate
                                        acquisitions,  syndications  and  dispositions  since 1960. From 1986 until
                                        active  operations of McREMI and McNeil  Partners,  L.P.  began in February
                                        1991,  Mr.  McNeil was a private  investor.  Mr.  McNeil is a member of the
                                        International  Board of Directors  of the Salk  Institute,  which  promotes
                                        research in improvements in health care.

Carole J. McNeil               52       Mrs.  McNeil is  Co-Chairman,  with  husband  Robert A.  McNeil,  of McNeil
Co-Chairman of the                      Investors,  Inc.  Mrs.  McNeil has twenty years of real estate  experience,
Board                                   most  recently  as a  private  investor  from  1986 to 1993.  In 1982,  she
                                        founded Ivory & Associates, a commercial real  estate   brokerage  firm  in
                                        San Francisco,  CA. Prior  to   that, she   was a commercial  real   estate
                                        associate  with the   Madison  Company  and,  earlier,  a commercial  sales
                                        associate and analyst   with   Marcus  and   Millichap   in  San Francisco. 
                                        In   1978,     Mrs.   McNeil   established     Escrow    Training  Centers, 
                                        California's   first   accredited commercial training   program  for  title
                                        company escrow  officers  and real estate  agents needing  college  credits
                                        to qualify   for brokerage  licenses.  She  began in real estate as Manager
                                        and Marketing    Director  of Title  Insurance  and  Trust in Marin County, 
                                        CA. Mrs.  McNeil  serves on   the  International  Board of Directors of the
                                        Salk Institute.

</TABLE>

<PAGE>

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                       Other Principal Occupations and Other
Name and Position             Age      Directorships During the Past 5 Years
-----------------             ---      -------------------------------------
<S>                            <C>      <C>
Donald K. Reed,                50       Mr. Reed is  President,  Chief  Executive  Officer  and  Director of McREMI
Director, President,                    which is an affiliate of the General  Partner.  Prior to joining  McREMI in
and Chief Executive                     March 1993, Mr. Reed was President,  Chief  Operating  Officer and Director
Officer                                 of Duddlesten Management Corporation and Duddlesten Realty Advisors,  Inc.,
                                        with  responsibility  for  a  management portfolio  of  office,     retail,
                                        multi-family and mixed-use land projects representing  $2 billion in  asset
                                        value. He was  also  Chief  Operating  Officer, Director  and member of the
                                        Executive Committee of all Duddlesten  affiliates. Mr.  Reed  started  with
                                        the  Duddlesten companies  in 1976 and served as Senior Vice  President and
                                        Chief   Financial Officer and as  Executive  Vice   President   and   Chief  
                                        Operating    Officer   of Duddlesten Management  Corporation   before   his
                                        promotion to President in 1982.  He was   President   and  Chief  Operating
                                        Officer of Duddlesten   Realty    Advisors, Inc.,  which  has been  engaged  
                                        in real  estate   acquisitions,   marketing   and dispositions,  since  its
                                        formation  in 1989.

Ron K. Taylor                  38       Mr.  Taylor  is a Senior  Vice  President  of  McREMI  and has been in this
Vice President                          capacity since McREMI commenced  active  operations in 1991. He also serves
                                        as Acting  Chief  Financial  Officer  of McREMI  since the  resignation  of
                                        Robert C. Irvine on January 31, 1996.  Mr. Taylor is primarily  responsible
                                        for Asset Management functions at McREMI,  including property dispositions,
                                        commercial  leasing,  real estate finance and portfolio  management.  Prior
                                        to joining  McREMI,  Mr. Taylor served as an Executive Vice President for a
                                        national  syndication/property  management  company.  Mr.  Taylor  has been
                                        involved in the real estate industry since 1983.
</TABLE>

Each director  shall serve until his successor  shall have been duly elected and
qualified.

ITEM 11.     EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
--------     ----------------------

No direct  compensation  was paid or payable by the  Partnership to directors or
officers  (since it does not have any  directors or officers) for the year ended
December  31,  1995,  nor was any  direct  compensation  paid or  payable by the
Partnership  to  directors  or officers  of the  general  partner of the General
Partner for the year ended  December 31, 1995. The  Partnership  has no plans to
pay any such remuneration to any directors or officers of the general partner of
the General Partner in the future.

See Item 13 - Certain  Relationships  and  Related  Transactions  for amounts of
compensation and  reimbursements  paid by the Partnership to the General Partner
and its affiliates.



<PAGE>

ITEM 12.     SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT
--------     --------------------------------------------------------------

(A)     Security ownership of certain beneficial owners.

        No individual or group, as defined by Section 13(d)(3) of the Securities
        Exchange Act of 1934,  known to the Partnership is the beneficial  owner
        of more  than 5% of the  Partnership's  securities,  except  as noted in
        below:

        1.      A  group  of  limited  partnerships  affiliated  with  Liquidity
                Financial  Corporation,  all of whose outstanding stock is owned
                by  Richard  G.  Wollack  and Brent R.  Donaldson,  2200  Powell
                Street, Suite 700, Emeryville,  California,  94608, collectively
                own 6,389 Units (5.80%) as of February 29, 1996.

        2.      High River Limited  Partnership,  100 S.   Bedford  Road,  Mount
                Kisco,  New York,  10549,  owns    7,976  Units (7.24%)   as  of
                February 29, 1996.

(B)     Security ownership of management.

        The  General  Partner  and the  officers  and  directors  of its general
        partner, collectively, own 5,715 Units (5.19%) as of February 29, 1996.

(C)     Change in control.

        None.

ITEM 13.     CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS
--------     ----------------------------------------------

Under the terms of the Amended Partnership Agreement,  the Partnership is paying
the MID to the  General  Partner.  The maximum  MID is  calculated  as 1% of the
tangible asset value of the  Partnership.  The maximum MID percentage  decreases
subsequent to 1999.  Tangible  asset value is determined by using the greater of
(i)  an  amount  calculated  by  applying  a  capitalization  rate  of 9% to the
annualized net operating  income of each property or (ii) a value of $10,000 per
apartment  unit to arrive at the property  tangible  asset  value.  The property
tangible  asset  value  is then  added to the book  value  of all  other  assets
excluding  intangible  items.  Prior to July 1, 1993,  the MID  consisted of two
components:  (i) the fixed portion which was payable  without respect to the net
income of the  Partnership  and was equal to 25% of the  maximum MID (the "Fixed
MID") and (ii) a contingent  portion which was payable only to the extent of the
lesser of the  Partnership's  excess  cash flow,  as defined,  or net  operating
income (the  "Entitlement  Amount") and is equal to up to 75% of the maximum MID
(the "Contingent MID").

Effective  July 1, 1993,  the General  Partner  amended the Amended  Partnership
Agreement as a settlement to a class action complaint. This amendment eliminates
the Fixed MID and makes the entire MID payable to the extent of the  Entitlement
Amount. In all other respects, the calculation and payment of the MID remain the
same.

Contingent MID will be paid to the extent of the Entitlement  Amount, and may be
paid in (i) cash, unless there is insufficient cash to pay the distribution,  in
which  event any  unpaid  portion  not taken in Units  will be  deferred  and is
payable, without interest, from the first available cash and/or (ii) in Units. A
maximum of 50% of the MID may be paid in Units.  The  number of Units  issued in
payment of the MID is based on the  greater of $50 per Unit or the net  tangible
asset value,  as defined,  per Unit.  For the year ended  December 31, 1995, the
Partnership paid or accrued for the General Partner Contingent MID in the amount
of $1,070,763.

<PAGE>

During  1991,  the  Partnership  amended  its  capitalization  policy  and began
capitalizing  certain costs of improvements and betterments which under policies
of  prior  management  had been  expensed  when  incurred.  The  purpose  of the
amendment was to more properly recognize items which were capital in nature. The
effect of the amendment  standing alone was evaluated at the time the change was
made and  determined  not to be  material  to the  financial  statements  of the
Partnership  in 1991,  nor was it expected  to be  material in any future  year.
However,  the amendment  can have a material  effect on the  calculation  of the
Entitlement  Amount which determines the amount of Contingent MID earned and the
amount of Fixed MID payable in cash. Capital improvements are excluded from cash
flow, as defined.  The majority of base period cash flow was measured  under the
previous  capitalization  policy, while incentive period cash flow is determined
using the amended policy.  Under the amended policy, more items are capitalized,
and cash flow  increases.  Had base  period  cash flow been  measured on a basis
comparable with incentive  period cash flow,  Contingent MID for the years ended
December  31, 1995 and 1994,  would have been  reduced by $111,248  and 169,741,
respectively.  The  amendment of the  capitalization  policy did not  materially
affect  the MID  for  1993  as the  Entitlement  Amount  was  sufficient  to pay
Contingent MID notwithstanding the amendment to the capitalization policy.

The  Partnership  pays  property  management  fees  equal to 5% of gross  rental
receipts  of the  Partnership's  properties  to McREMI  for  providing  property
management  and  leasing  services  for  the   Partnership's   properties.   The
Partnership   reimburses   McREMI  for  its  costs,   including   overhead,   of
administering the Partnership's  affairs.  For the year ended December 31, 1995,
the  Partnership  paid or accrued  $1,680,513  in property  management  fees and
reimbursements.

See  Item 1 -  Business,  Item  7 -  Management's  Discussion  and  Analysis  of
Financial  Condition  and  Results  of  Operations,  and  Item  8  -  Note  2  -
"Transactions with Affiliates."



<PAGE>


                                     PART IV

ITEM 14.     EXHIBITS, FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES AND REPORTS ON FORM 8-K
--------     ---------------------------------------------------------------

See accompanying Index to Financial Statements at Item 8.

(A) The  following  exhibits are  incorporated  by reference and are an integral
part of this Form 10-K.

        Exhibits

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
              Exhibit
              Number              Description
              -------             ----------- 
               <S>                <C>                                                              
               3.                 Limited  Partnership  Agreement  (Incorporated
                                  by reference to the Annual Report on Form 10-K
                                  for the fiscal year ended September 30, 1987).

               3.1                Amended and  Restated   Limited    Partnership  
                                  Agreement     dated     November     12,  1991
                                  (Incorporated  by reference   to the Quarterly
                                  Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter year ended
                                  September 30, 1991).

               3.2                Amendment  No. 1 to the  Amended and  Restated
                                  Partnership  Agreement  of McNeil Real  Estate
                                  Fund IX, Ltd., dated to be effective   as   of
                                  July 31, 1993. (5)

               3.3                Amendment  No. 2 to the  Amended and  Restated
                                  Partnership  Agreement  of McNeil Real  Estate
                                  Fund IX, Ltd., dated March 28, 1994. (5)

              10.1                Mortgage  Note,  dated   September  26,  1989,
                                  between  Rolling  Hills  Fund  IX   Associates
                                  L.P. and Newport Mortgage Corporation. (1)

              10.2                Mortgage Note, dated August 11, 1988,  between
                                  Sherwood     Forest  Fund   IX  Associates and
                                  American Mortgages, Inc. (1)

              10.3                Assignment  and  Assumption  Agreement,  dated
                                  as of November 12,  1991,   between    Pacific
                                  Investors   Corporation  and McNeil  Partners,
                                  L.P.  regarding    Sherwood   Forest   Fund IX
                                  Associates. (2)

              10.4                Assignment and  Assumption  Agreement,   dated
                                  as of  November 12,  1991,    between  Pacific
                                  Investors  Corporation  and   McNeil Partners,
                                  L.P. regarding Berkley Hills Associates. (2)

              10.5                Assignment and   Assumption  Agreement,  dated
                                  as of  November 12,  1991,  between    Pacific
                                  Investors  Corporation and  McNeil   Partners,
                                  L.P.     regarding    Ruskin    Place  Fund IX 
                                  Associates. (2)
</TABLE>

<PAGE>

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
              Exhibit
              Number              Description
              -------             ----------- 
               <S>                <C>                                                              
              10.6                Assignment  and  Assumption  Agreement,  dated
                                  as  of  November 12,  1991,  between   Rolling
                                  Hills Apartment Corp. and   McNeil   Partners,
                                  L.P.    regarding    Rolling    Hills  Fund IX 
                                  Associates, L.P. (2)

              10.7                Assignment and  Assumption   Agreement,  dated
                                  as    of  November 12,  1991,  between Pacific
                                  Investors  Corporation,  Robert A. McNeil  and
                                  McNeil   Partners,  L.P. regarding McNeil Real
                                  Estate Fund IX, Ltd. (2)

              10.8                Termination   Agreement,  dated as of November
                                  12, 1991, between     Ruskin    Place  Fund IX
                                  Associates and McNeil Real Estate  Management,
                                  Inc. (2)

              10.9                Termination Agreement, dated as  of   November
                                  12, 1991. (2) between   Rolling    Hills  Fund
                                  IX  Associates,  L.P. and McNeil  Real  Estate
                                  Management, Inc.

              10.10               Termination  Agreement,  dated as  of November
                                  12, 1991,  between  Sherwood Forest    Fund IX
                                  Associates and McNeil Real Estate  Management, 
                                  Inc. (2)

              10.11               Termination  Agreement,  dated as  of November
                                  12,  1991,  between  Berkley  Hills Associates
                                  and McNeil Real Estate Management, Inc. (2)

              10.12               Property  Management  Agreement,  dated as  of
                                  November 12, 1991,  between McNeil Real Estate
                                  Fund IX,  Ltd.    and   McNeil   Real   Estate 
                                  Management, Inc. (2)

              10.13               Property  Management  Agreement,  dated as  of
                                  November 12, 1991,  between  Ruskin Place Fund
                                  IX     Associates     and   McNeil Real Estate 
                                  Management, Inc. (2)

              10.14               Property  Management  Agreement,  dated as  of
                                  November 12, 1991,  between Rolling Hills Fund
                                  IX Associates, L.P.  and    McNeil Real Estate 
                                  Management, Inc. (2)

              10.15               Property  Management  Agreement,  dated as  of
                                  November 12, 1991,   between   Sherwood Forest
                                  Fund IX    Associates, L.P. and    McNeil Real 
                                  Estate Management, Inc. (2)

              10.16               Property   Management  Agreement,  dated as of 
                                  November 12,   1991,    between  Berkley Hills
                                  Associates and McNeil Real Estate  Management,
                                  Inc. (2)
</TABLE>

<PAGE>

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
              Exhibit
              Number              Description
              -------             ----------- 
               <S>                <C>                                                              
              10.17               Asset Management  Agreement,  dated    as   of 
                                  November 12, 1991,  between McNeil Real Estate
                                  Fund IX, Ltd. and McNeil Partners, L.P. (2)

              10.18               Revolving  Credit  Agreement,  dated August 6,
                                  1991,  between  McNeil Real Estate  Fund   IX,
                                  Ltd. and McNeil Partners, L.P.(2)

              10.19               Amendment  of  Property  Management  Agreement
                                  dated  March 5, 1993  between the  Partnership
                                  and McNeil Real Estate Management, Inc. (3)

              10.20               Property  management  agreement,  dated as  of
                                  January 28, 1993, between Pennbrook   Fund IX,
                                  L.P. and McNeil Real    Estate     Management, 
                                  Inc. (3)

              10.21               Amendment  of  Property  Management  Agreement
                                  dated  March  5,  1993  between Pennbrook Fund
                                  IX Associates, L.P. and    McNeil  Real Estate
                                  Management, Inc. (3)

              10.22               Loan  Agreement  dated June 24,  1993  between
                                  Lexington  Mortgage  Company  and  McNeil Real
                                  Estate Fund IX, Ltd., et. al. (4)

              10.23               Master Property Management  Agreement,   dated
                                  as    of    June 24, 1993, between McNeil Real
                                  Estate Management, Inc. and McNeil Real Estate
                                  Fund IX, Ltd. (5)

              10.24               Mortgage  Note,   dated  September  28,  1989,
                                  between  Ruskin    Place   Fund  IX Associates 
                                  and American Mortgages, Inc. (6)

              10.25               Modification  of    Mortgage      Note,  dated 
                                  July 28, 1994,  between    Ruskin   Place Fund
                                  IX Associates and American Mortgages, Inc. (6)

              10.26               Deed of Trust Note,  dated  November  3, 1988,
                                  between  Berkley Hills Associates and American
                                  Mortgages, Inc. (6)

              10.27               Modification  of Deed of Trust   Note,   dated 
                                  July 28, 1994,     between    Berkley    Hills
                                  Associates and American Mortgages, Inc. (6)

              10.28               Loan Agreement,  dated     December  30, 1992,  
                                  between Forest Park     Fund   IX   Associates
                                  Limited  Partnership,  McNeil Partners,  L.P.,
                                  McNeil Real    Estate     Fund    IX, Ltd. and 
                                  Collateral Mortgage, Ltd. (6)
</TABLE>


<PAGE>

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
              Exhibit
              Number              Description
              -------             ----------- 
               <S>                <C>                                                              
              10.29               Promissory    Note,    dated February 5, 1979,
                                  between  Summers-The    Heather     Apartments
                                  Company and The Mutual Benefit Life  Insurance
                                  Company. (6)

              10.30               Promissory  Note,  dated  September   2, 1988, 
                                  between McNeil Real  Estate  Fund IX, Ltd. and 
                                  FNB Mortgage Corp. (6)

              10.31               Multifamily  Note,   dated   January 29, 1993,
                                  between Pennbrook Fund IX Associates, L.P. and
                                  Washington Mortgage Financial Group, Ltd. (6)

              10.32               Modification of Mortgage Note,  dated June 30,
                                  1993,  between     Sherwood   Forest   Fund IX 
                                  Associates and American Mortgages, Inc. (6)

              11.                 Statement    regarding    computation  of  Net 
                                  Income  (Loss)    per   Limited    Partnership
                                  Unit (see Note 1 to Financial Statements).

              22.                 Following is  a    list of subsidiaries of the 
                                  Partnership:
                                                                                             Names Under
                                                                   Jurisdiction              Which It Is
                                  Name of Subsidiary             of Incorporation          Doing Business
                                  ------------------             ----------------          --------------

                                  Berkley Hills Associates         Tennessee                    None

                                  Cherry Hills Fund IX
                                  Limited Partnership              Delaware                     None

                                  Forest Park Fund IX
                                  Associates Limited
                                  Partnership                      Ohio                         None

                                  Lantern Tree Fund IX
                                  Limited Partnership              Delaware                     None

                                  Meridian West Fund IX
                                  Limited Partnership              Delaware                     None

                                  Pennbrook Fund XI
                                  Associates, L.P.                 Texas                        None

                                  Rockborough Fund IX
                                  Limited Partnership              Delaware                     None

                                  Rolling Hills Fund IX
                                  Associates, L.P.                 Kentucky                     None

                                  Ruskin Place
                                  Fund IX Associates               Nebraska                     None

                                  Sherwood Forest
                                  Fund IX Associates               Michigan                     None

                                  Williamsburg Fund IX
                                  Limited Partnership              Delaware                     None
</TABLE>


<PAGE>

              The Partnership has omitted  instruments with respect to long-term
              debt  where  the  total  amount  of  the   securities   authorized
              thereunder  does  not  exceed  10%  of  the  total  assets  of the
              Partnership. The Partnership agrees to furnish a copy of each such
              instrument to the Commission upon request.

        (1)   Incorporated  by  reference  to the Annual  Report of McNeil  Real
              Estate    Fund   IX,  Ltd.  (File No. 0-9026) on Form 10-K for the
              period  ended  December  31,  1990,  as filed  with the Securities
              and Exchange Commission on March 29, 1991.

        (2)   Incorporated  by  reference  to the Annual  Report of McNeil  Real
              Estate    Fund IX,  Ltd.  (File No. 0-9026),  on Form 10-K for the
              period   ended  December  31, 1991,  as filed with the  Securities
              and Exchange Commission on March 30, 1992.

        (3)   Incorporated  by  reference  to the Annual  Report of McNeil  Real
              Estate    Fund IX,  Ltd.  (File No. 0-9026),  on Form 10-K for the
              period   ended  December  31, 1992,  as filed with the  Securities
              and Exchange Commission on March 30, 1993.

        (4)   Incorporated  by  reference  to the Annual  Report of McNeil  Real
              Estate    Fund XI,  Ltd.  (File No. 0-9783),  on Form 10-K for the
              period   ended  December  31, 1993,  as filed with the  Securities
              and Exchange Commission on March 30, 1994.

        (5)   Incorporated  by  reference  to the Annual  Report of McNeil  Real
              Estate    Fund IX,  Ltd.  (File No. 0-9026),  on Form 10-K for the
              period   ended  December  31, 1993,  as filed with the  Securities
              and Exchange Commission on March 30, 1994.

        (6)   Incorporated  by  reference  to the Annual  Report of McNeil  Real
              Estate   Fund IX,  Ltd.  (File No. 0-9026),  on Form 10-K for the 
              period   ended  December  31, 1995,  as filed with the  Securities
              and Exchange Commission on March 30, 1995.

        27.   Financial Data Schedule for the year ended December 31, 1995.

(B)  Reports on Form 8-K.  There  were no  reports on Form 8-K filed  during the
quarter ended December 31, 1995.


<PAGE>



                        McNEIL REAL ESTATE FUND IX, LTD.
                              A Limited Partnership

                                 SIGNATURE PAGE


Pursuant to the  requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) 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.


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                   McNEIL REAL ESTATE FUND IX, LTD.


                                                   By:  McNeil Partners, L.P., General Partner

                                                        By: McNeil Investors, Inc., General Partner



<S>                                                <C>                      
March 29, 1996                                     By:  /s/  Robert A. McNeil
------------------                                      ------------------------------------------------
Date                                                    Robert A. McNeil
                                                        Chairman of the Board and Director
                                                        (Principal Executive Officer)


Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report
has been signed below by the following  persons on behalf of the  registrant and
in the capacities and on the dates indicated.



March 29, 1996                                     By:  /s/  Donald K. Reed
-----------------                                       ------------------------------------------------
Date                                                    Donald K. Reed
                                                        President and Director of McNeil Investors, Inc.



March 29, 1996                                     By:  /s/  Ron K. Taylor
-----------------                                       ------------------------------------------------
Date                                                    Ron K. Taylor
                                                        Acting Chief Financial Officer
                                                            of McNeil Investors, Inc.



March 29, 1996                                     By:  /s/  Brandon K. Flaming
-----------------                                       ------------------------------------------------
Date                                                    Brandon K. Flaming
                                                        Chief Accounting Officer of McNeil Real Estate
                                                           Management, Inc.

</TABLE>