UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C.  20549



Form 10-QSB



(Mark One)

[X]

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



For the quarterly period ended September 30, 2006





[ ]

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





For the transition period from _________to _________



Commission file number 0-10304





ANGELES PARTNERS X

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







California

95-3557899

(State or other jurisdiction of

(I.R.S. Employer

incorporation or organization)

Identification No.)



55 Beattie Place, PO Box 1089

Greenville, South Carolina  29602

(Address of principal executive offices)



(864) 239-1000

(Issuer's telephone number)





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



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





PART I  FINANCIAL INFORMATION







ITEM 1.

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS







ANGELES PARTNERS X

CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET

(Unaudited)

(in thousands, except unit data)



September 30, 2006







|                                          |          |         
|----------------------------------------- | -------- | --------
|Assets                                    |          |         
|Cash and cash equivalents                 |          | $     63
|Receivables and deposits                  |          | 73      
|Other assets                              |          | 114     
|Investment property:                      |          |         
|Land                                      | $    101 |         
|Buildings and related personal property   | 6,725    |         
|                                          | 6,826    |         
|Less accumulated depreciation             | (5,253)  | 1,573   
|                                          |          | $1,823  
|                                          |          |         
|Liabilities and Partners' Deficit         |          |         
|Liabilities                               |          |         
|Accounts payable                          |          | $     10
|Tenant security deposit liabilities       |          | 22      
|Accrued property taxes                    |          | 16      
|Other liabilities                         |          | 63      
|Due to affiliates (Note B)                |          | 747     
|Mortgage note payable                     |          | 4,695   
|                                          |          |         
|Partners' Deficit                         |          |         
|General partners                          | $  (229) |         
|Limited partners (18,625 units issued and |          |         
|outstanding)                              | (3,501)  | (3,730) 
|                                          |          | $1,823  



See Accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements





























ANGELES PARTNERS X

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

(Unaudited)

(in thousands, except per unit data)





|                                      |                    |                   |          |         
|------------------------------------- | ------------------ | ----------------- | -------- | --------
|                                      | Three Months Ended | Nine Months Ended
|                                      | September 30,      | September 30,    
|                                      | 2006               | 2005              | 2006     | 2005    
|Revenues:                             |                    |                   |          |         
|Rental income                         | $   334            | $   324           | $   981  | $   932 
|Other income                          | 27                 | 29                | 79       | 85      
|Total revenues                        | 361                | 353               | 1,060    | 1,017   
|                                      |                    |                   |          |         
|Expenses:                             |                    |                   |          |         
|Operating                             | 154                | 154               | 449      | 465     
|General and administrative            | 23                 | 26                | 66       | 74      
|Depreciation                          | 122                | 98                | 364      | 268     
|Interest                              | 102                | 80                | 288      | 211     
|Property taxes                        | 51                 | 44                | 140      | 133     
|Total expenses                        | 452                | 402               | 1,307    | 1,151   
|                                      |                    |                   |          |         
|Net loss                              | $(91)              | $(49)             | $(247)   | $(134)  
|                                      |                    |                   |          |         
|Net loss allocated to general         |                    |                   |          |         
|partners (1%)                         | $    (1)           | $    --           | $    (2) | $    (1)
|Net loss allocated to limited         |                    |                   |          |         
|partners (99%)                        | (90)               | (49)              | (245)    | (133)   
|                                      | $(91)              | $(49)             | $(247)   | $(134)  
|                                      |                    |                   |          |         
|Net loss per limited partnership unit | $(4.83)            | $(2.63)           | $(13.15) | $(7.14) 



See Accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements























ANGELES PARTNERS X

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN PARTNERS' DEFICIT

(Unaudited)

(in thousands, except unit data)













|                               |             |          |          |         
|------------------------------ | ----------- | -------- | -------- | --------
|                               | Limited     |          |          |         
|                               | Partnership | General  | Limited  |         
|                               | Units       | Partners | Partners | Total   
|                               |             |          |          |         
|Original capital contributions | 18,714      | $1       | $18,714  | $18,715 
|                               |             |          |          |         
|Partners' deficit at           |             |          |          |         
|December 31, 2005              | 18,625      | $  (227) | $(3,256) | $(3,483)
|                               |             |          |          |         
|Net loss for the nine months   |             |          |          |         
|ended September 30, 2006       | --          | (2)      | (245)    | (247)   
|                               |             |          |          |         
|Partners' deficit              |             |          |          |         
|at September 30, 2006          | 18,625      | $(229)   | $(3,501) | $(3,730)



See Accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements























ANGELES PARTNERS X

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(Unaudited)

(in thousands)

|                                                    |                   |         
|--------------------------------------------------- | ----------------- | --------
|                                                    | Nine Months Ended
|                                                    | September 30,    
|                                                    | 2006              | 2005    
|Cash flows from operating activities:               |                   |         
|Net loss                                            | $  (247)          | $  (134)
|Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash       |                   |         
|provided by operating activities:                   |                   |         
|Depreciation                                        | 364               | 268     
|Amortization of loan costs                          | 34                | 34      
|Change in accounts:                                 |                   |         
|Receivables and deposits                            | 10                | (57)    
|Other assets                                        | (35)              | 8       
|Accounts payable                                    | (7)               | (27)    
|Tenant security deposit liabilities                 | 4                 | 5       
|Accrued property taxes                              | (46)              | 68      
|Due to affiliates                                   | (90)              | 58      
|Other liabilities                                   | 20                | (10)    
|Net cash provided by operating activities           | 7                 | 213     
|                                                    |                   |         
|Cash flows used in investing activities:            |                   |         
|Property improvements and replacements              | (82)              | (361)   
|                                                    |                   |         
|Cash flows from financing activities:               |                   |         
|Advances from affiliate                             | 14                | 160     
|Payments on mortgage note payable                   | (78)              | (76)    
|Loan costs refunded, net                            | --                | 5       
|Net cash (used in) provided by financing activities | (64)              | 89      
|                                                    |                   |         
|                                                    |                   |         
|Net decrease in cash and cash equivalents           | (139)             | (59)    
|                                                    |                   |         
|Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period    | 202               | 71      
|                                                    |                   |         
|                                                    |                   |         
|Cash and cash equivalents at end of period          | $63               | $12     
|                                                    |                   |         
|Supplemental disclosure of cash flow information:   |                   |         
|Cash paid for interest                              | $274              | $157    



See Accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

























ANGELES PARTNERS X

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Unaudited)



Note A  Basis of Presentation



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



Certain reclassifications have been made to the 2005 balances to conform to the 2006 presentation.



Note B  Transactions with Affiliated Parties



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



Affiliates of the General Partner receive 5% of gross receipts from the Partnerships property as compensation for providing property management services. The Partnership paid to such affiliates approximately $52,000 and $51,000 for the nine months ended September 30, 2006 and 2005, respectively, which are included in operating expenses.



Affiliates of the General Partner charged the Partnership for reimbursement of accountable administrative expenses amounting to approximately $31,000 and $79,000 for the nine months ended September 30, 2006 and 2005, respectively. These amounts are included in general and administrative expenses and investment property.  The portion of these reimbursements included in investment property for the nine months ended September 30, 2006 and 2005 are fees related to construction management services provided by an affiliate of the General Partner of approximately $5,000 and $45,000, respectively. At September 30, 2006, approximately $15,000 is owed to affiliates for unpaid reimbursements and is included in due to affiliates.



In accordance with the Partnership Agreement, an affiliate of the General Partner advanced the Partnership approximately $530,000 to repay the mortgage encumbering Carriage Hills Apartments and to cover operating expenses during 2004. Additional advances of approximately $160,000 to fund capital improvements and operating expenses at Carriage Hills Apartments were made during the nine months ended September 30, 2005. During the nine months ended September 30, 2006, an affiliate of the General Partner advanced the Partnership approximately $14,000 to fund operating
expenses at Carriage Hills Apartments. Interest accrues at the prime rate plus 2% (10.25% at September 30, 2006).  Interest expense was approximately $43,000 and $26,000 for the nine months ended September 30, 2006 and 2005, respectively. During the nine months ended September 30, 2006, the Partnership made payments of accrued interest of approximately $57,000 with cash from operations. There were no such payments made during the nine months ended September 30, 2005. At September 30, 2006, the total amount of advances and accrued interest due to an affiliate of the General Partner was approximately $732,000 and is included in due to affiliates.



Pursuant to the Partnership Agreement, the General Partner is entitled to receive a distribution equal to 4% of the aggregate disposition price of sold properties. The Partnership paid a distribution of approximately $210,000 to the General Partner related to the sale of Greentree Apartments in 2003. The Partnership paid a distribution of approximately $154,000 to the General Partner related to the sale of Vista Hills Apartments in 1999. These distributions are subordinate to the limited partners receiving their original capital contributions plus a cumulative preferred return of 6% per annum of their adjusted capital investment, as defined in the Partnership Agreement. If the limited partners have not received these returns when the Partnership terminates, the General Partner will be required to return these amounts to the Partnership.



The Partnership Agreement provides for a fee equal to 5% of net cash flow from operations, as defined in the Partnership Agreement, to be paid to the General Partner for executive and administrative services.  The General Partner did not earn a fee for the nine months ended September 30, 2006 or 2005.



The Partnership insures its property up to certain limits through coverage provided by AIMCO which is generally self-insured for a portion of losses and liabilities related to workers compensation, property casualty, general liability and vehicle liability.  The Partnership insures its property above the AIMCO limits through insurance policies obtained by AIMCO from insurers unaffiliated with the General Partner.  During the nine months ended September 30, 2006 and 2005, the Partnership was charged by AIMCO and its affiliates approximately $32,000 and $19,000, respectively, for insurance coverage and fees associated with policy claims administration.



Note C  Contingencies



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



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



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



On August 18, 2005, Objector and his counsel filed a motion to disqualify the trial court based on a peremptory challenge and filed a motion to disqualify for cause on October 17, 2005, both of which were ultimately denied and/or struck by the trial court.  On or about October 13, 2005 Objector filed a motion to intervene and on or about October 19, 2005 filed both a motion to take discovery relating to the adequacy of plaintiffs as derivative representatives and a motion to dissolve the anti-suit injunction in connection with settlement.  On November 14, 2005, Plaintiffs filed a Motion For Further Findings pursuant to the remand ordered by the Court of Appeals. Defendants joined in that motion.  On February 3, 2006, the Court held a hearing on the various matters pending before it and ordered additional briefing from the parties and Objector. On June 30, 2006, the trial court entered an order confirming its approval of the class action settlement and entering judgment thereto after the Court of Appeals had remanded the matter for further findings.  The substantive terms of the settlement agreement remain unchanged.  The trial court also entered supplemental orders on July 1, 2006, denying Objectors Motion to File a Complaint in Intervention, Objectors Motion for Leave of Discovery and Objectors Motion to Dissolve the Anti-Suit Injunction.  Notice of Entry of Judgment was served on July 10, 2006. On August 31, 2006, the Objector filed a Notice of Appeal to the Courts June 30, 2006 and July 1, 2006 orders.



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



AIMCO Properties L.P. and NHP Management Company, both affiliates of the General Partner, are defendants in a lawsuit alleging that they willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by failing to pay maintenance workers overtime for all hours worked in excess of forty per week. The complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, attempts to bring a collective action under the FLSA and seeks to certify state subclasses in California, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. Specifically, the plaintiffs contend that AIMCO Properties L.P. and NHP Management Company failed to compensate maintenance workers for time that they were required to be "on-call." Additionally, the complaint alleges AIMCO Properties L.P. and NHP Management Company failed to comply with the FLSA in compensating maintenance workers for time that they worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.   In June 2005 the court conditionally certified the collective action on both the on-call and overtime issues.  Approximately 1,049 individuals opted in to
the class. The defendants moved to decertify the collective action on both issues and the plaintiffs have responded.  Because the court denied plaintiffs motion to certify state subclasses, in September 2005, the plaintiffs filed a class action with the same allegations in the Superior Court of California (Contra Costa County), and in November 2005 in Montgomery County Maryland Circuit Court.  The California and Maryland cases have been stayed pending the outcome of the decertification motion in the District of Columbia case.  Although the outcome of any litigation is uncertain, AIMCO Properties, L.P. does not believe that the ultimate outcome will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial condition or results of operations. Similarly, the General Partner does not believe that the ultimate outcome will have a material adverse effect on the Partnerships consolidated financial condition or results of operations.



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



Environmental



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



Mold



The Partnership is aware of lawsuits against owners and managers of multifamily properties asserting claims of personal injury and property damage caused by the presence of mold, some of which have resulted in substantial monetary judgments or settlements.  The Partnership has only limited insurance coverage for property damage loss claims arising from the presence of mold and for personal injury claims related to mold exposure.  Affiliates of the General Partner have implemented a national policy and procedures to prevent or eliminate mold from its properties and the General Partner believes that these measures will minimize the effects that mold

could have on residents.  To date, the Partnership has not incurred any material costs or liabilities relating to claims of mold exposure or to abate mold conditions.  Because the law regarding mold is unsettled and subject to change the General Partner can make no assurance that liabilities resulting from the presence of or exposure to mold will not have a material adverse effect on the Partnerships consolidated financial condition or results of operations.





ITEM 2.

MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OR PLAN OF OPERATION



The matters discussed in this report contain certain forward-looking statements, including, without limitation, statements regarding future financial performance and the effect of government regulations. Actual results may differ materially from those described in the forward-looking statements and will be affected by a variety of risks and factors including, without limitation: national and local economic conditions; the terms of governmental regulations that affect the Registrant and interpretations of those regulations; the competitive environment in which the Registrant operates; financing risks, including the risk that cash flows from operations may be insufficient to meet required payments of principal and interest; real estate risks, including variations of real estate values and the general economic climate in local markets and competition for tenants in such markets; litigation, including costs associated with prosecuting and defending claims and any adverse outcomes, and possible environmental liabilities. Readers should carefully review the Registrant's financial statements and the notes thereto, as well as the risk factors described in the documents the Registrant files from time to time with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



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



|                          |                   |     
|------------------------- | ----------------- | ----
|                          | Average Occupancy
|Property                  | 2006              | 2005
|                          |                   |     
|Carriage Hills Apartments | 95%               | 92% 
|East Lansing, Michigan    |                   |     



The General Partner attributes the increase in occupancy at Carriage Hills Apartments to increased resident retention efforts.



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



Results of Operations



The Partnerships net loss for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2006 was approximately $91,000 and $247,000, respectively, compared to approximately $49,000 and $134,000 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2005, respectively.  The increase in net loss for both the three and nine months ended September 30, 2006 is due to an increase in total expenses, partially offset by an increase in total revenues.  The increase in total expenses for the three months ended September 30, 2006 is due to increases in depreciation, interest and property tax expenses. Operating and general and administrative expenses remained relatively constant for the three months ended September 30, 2006. The increase in total expenses for the nine months ended September 30, 2006 is due to increases in
depreciation, interest and property tax expenses, partially offset by decreases in operating and general and administrative expenses.  The increase in depreciation expense for both periods is due to property improvements and replacements placed into service at the Partnerships investment property during the past twelve months.  The increase in interest expense for both periods is primarily due to a higher variable interest rate on the mortgage encumbering Carriage Hills Apartments and an increase in interest on advances from an affiliate of the General Partner. The increase in property tax expense for both periods is primarily due to a special assessment charged by the taxing authority related to sidewalk construction at Carriage Hills Apartments. The decrease in operating expenses for the nine months ended September 30, 2006 is primarily due to decreases in contract services and employee housing expenses, partially offset by increases in utilities and salaries and related benefits at the Partnerships investment property. The decrease in general and administrative expenses for the nine months ended September 30, 2006 is primarily due to a decrease in management reimbursements to the General Partner as allowed under the Partnership Agreement. Also included in general and administrative expenses for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2006 and 2005 are costs associated with the quarterly and annual communications with investors and regulatory agencies and the annual audit required by the Partnership Agreement.



The increase in total revenues for both the three and nine months ended September 30, 2006 is due to an increase in rental income.  The increase in total revenues for the nine months ended September 30, 2006 was partially offset by a decrease in other income, which remained relatively constant for the three months ended September 30, 2006. The increase in rental income for both periods is primarily due to increases in occupancy and the average rental rate at the Partnerships investment property. The decrease in other income for the nine months ended September 30, 2006 is primarily due to decreases in lease cancellation fees and tenant application fees, partially offset by an increase in cleaning and damage fees at the property.



Liquidity and Capital Resources



At September 30, 2006, the Partnership had cash and cash equivalents of approximately $63,000, compared to approximately $12,000 at September 30, 2005.  The decrease in cash and cash equivalents of approximately $139,000, from December 31, 2005, is due to approximately $82,000 and $64,000 of cash used in investing and financing activities, respectively, partially offset by approximately $7,000 of cash provided by operating activities.  Cash used in investing activities consisted of property improvements and replacements. Cash used in financing activities consisted of payments of principal made on the mortgage encumbering Carriage Hills Apartments, partially offset by an advance from an affiliate of the General Partner. The Partnership invests its working capital reserves in interest bearing accounts.



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



During the nine months ended September 30, 2006, the Partnership completed approximately $82,000 of capital improvements at Carriage Hills Apartments, consisting primarily of furniture upgrades and floor covering replacement. These improvements were funded from operations.  The Partnership regularly evaluates the capital improvement needs of the property.  While the Partnership has no material commitments for property improvements and replacements, certain routine capital expenditures are anticipated during 2006.  Such capital expenditures will depend on
the physical condition of the property as well as anticipated cash flow generated by the property.



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



The Partnerships assets are thought to be generally sufficient for any near-term needs (exclusive of capital improvements) of the Partnership. The mortgage indebtedness encumbering the Partnerships property of approximately $4,695,000 is amortized over 30 years with a balloon payment of approximately $4,598,000 due on September 15, 2007. Interest is equal to the Fannie Mae discounted mortgage-backed security index plus 85 basis points (6.07% at September 30, 2006).  The interest rate resets monthly.  The General Partner has the option to extend the maturity for five years. After that period, the General Partner will attempt to refinance such indebtedness and/or sell the property. If the property cannot be refinanced or sold for a sufficient amount, the Partnership will risk losing such property through foreclosure.



There were no distributions made to the partners during the nine months ended September 30, 2006 or 2005. Future cash distributions will depend on the levels of net cash generated from operations, the timing of the debt maturity, refinancing, and/or property sale. The Partnerships cash available for distribution is reviewed on a monthly basis. In light of the amounts accrued and payable to affiliates of the General Partner at September 30, 2006, there can be no assurance that the Partnership will generate sufficient funds from operations, after required capital expenditures, to permit any distributions to its partners in 2006 or subsequent periods.



Other



In addition to its indirect ownership of the general partner interest in the Partnership, AIMCO and its affiliates owned 11,518 limited partnership units (the "Units") in the Partnership representing 61.84% of the outstanding Units at September 30, 2006.  A number of these Units were acquired pursuant to tender offers made by AIMCO or its affiliates.  It is possible that AIMCO or its affiliates will acquire additional Units in the Partnership in exchange for cash or a combination of cash and units in AIMCO Properties, L.P., the operating partnership of AIMCO, either through private purchases or tender offers.  Pursuant to the Partnership Agreement, unitholders holding a majority of the Units are entitled to take action with respect to a variety of matters, that include, but are not limited to, voting on certain amendments to the Partnership Agreement and voting to remove the General Partner.  As a result of its ownership of 61.84% of the outstanding Units, AIMCO and its affiliates are in a position to control all such voting decisions with respect to the Partnership.  Although the General Partner owes fiduciary duties to the limited partners of the Partnership, the General Partner also owes fiduciary duties to AIMCO as its sole stockholder.  As a result, the duties of the General Partner, as general partner, to the Partnership and its limited partners may come into conflict with the duties of the General Partner to AIMCO as its sole stockholder.



Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates



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



Impairment of Long-Lived Asset



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



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



Revenue Recognition



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



ITEM 3.

CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES



(a)

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



(b)

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



PART II - OTHER INFORMATION





ITEM 1.

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS



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



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



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



On August 18, 2005, Objector and his counsel filed a motion to disqualify the trial court based on a peremptory challenge and filed a motion to disqualify for cause on October 17, 2005, both of which were ultimately denied and/or struck by the trial court.  On or about October 13, 2005 Objector filed a motion to intervene and on or about October 19, 2005 filed both a motion to take discovery relating to the adequacy of plaintiffs as derivative representatives and a motion to dissolve the anti-suit injunction in connection with settlement.  On November 14, 2005, Plaintiffs filed a Motion For Further Findings pursuant to the remand ordered by the Court of Appeals. Defendants joined in that motion.  On February 3, 2006, the Court held a hearing on the various matters pending before it and ordered additional briefing from the parties and Objector. On June 30, 2006, the trial court entered an
order confirming its approval of the class action settlement and entering judgment thereto after the Court of Appeals had remanded the matter for further findings.  The substantive terms of the settlement agreement remain unchanged.  The trial court also entered supplemental orders on July 1, 2006, denying Objectors Motion to File a Complaint in Intervention, Objectors Motion for Leave of Discovery and Objectors Motion to Dissolve the Anti-Suit Injunction.  Notice of Entry of Judgment was served on July 10, 2006. On August 31, 2006, the Objector filed a Notice of Appeal to the Courts June 30, 2006 and July 1, 2006 orders.



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



AIMCO Properties L.P. and NHP Management Company, both affiliates of the General Partner, are defendants in a lawsuit alleging that they willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by failing to pay maintenance workers overtime for all hours worked in excess of forty per week. The complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, attempts to bring a collective action under the FLSA and seeks to certify state subclasses in California, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. Specifically, the plaintiffs contend that AIMCO Properties L.P. and NHP Management Company failed to compensate maintenance workers for time that they were required to be "on-call." Additionally, the complaint alleges AIMCO Properties L.P. and NHP Management Company failed to comply with the FLSA in compensating maintenance workers for time that they worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.
In June 2005 the court conditionally certified the collective action on both the on-call and overtime issues.  Approximately 1,049 individuals opted in to the class. The defendants moved to decertify the collective action on both issues and the plaintiffs have responded.  Because the court denied plaintiffs motion to certify state subclasses, in September 2005, the plaintiffs filed a class action with the same allegations in the Superior Court of California (Contra Costa County), and in November 2005 in Montgomery County Maryland Circuit Court.  The California and Maryland cases have been stayed pending the outcome of the decertification motion in the District of Columbia case.  Although the outcome of any litigation is uncertain, AIMCO Properties, L.P. does not believe that the ultimate outcome will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial condition or results of operations. Similarly, the General Partner does not believe that the ultimate outcome will have a material adverse effect on the Partnerships consolidated financial condition or results of operations.



ITEM 5.

OTHER INFORMATION



None.



ITEM 6.

EXHIBITS



See Exhibit Index.



SIGNATURES







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







|                        |                                 
|----------------------- | --------------------------------
|                        | ANGELES PARTNERS X              
|                        |                                 
|                        | By:   Angeles Realty Corporation
|                        | Its General Partner             
|                        |                                 
|Date: November 13, 2006 | By:   /s/Martha L. Long         
|                        | Martha L. Long                  
|                        | Senior Vice President           
|                        |                                 
|Date: November 13, 2006 | By:   /s/Stephen B. Waters      
|                        | Stephen B. Waters               
|                        | Vice President                  























ANGELES PARTNERS X



EXHIBIT INDEX



Exhibit Number

Description





3.1

Amended Certificate and Agreement of Limited Partnership dated June 24, 1980, filed in Form 10-K dated October 31, 1982, and is incorporated herein by reference.



10.4

Purchase and Sale Agreement with Exhibits - Carriage Hills Apartments filed in Form 8-K dated July 30, 1982, and incorporated herein by reference.



10.18

Loan Agreement dated November 30, 2004 between Carriage APX, a Michigan limited partnership and GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corporation, filed on Form 8-K dated December 1, 2004 and incorporated herein by reference.



10.19

Promissory Note dated November 30, 2004 between Carriage APX, a Michigan limited partnership and GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corporation, filed on Form 8-K dated December 1, 2004 and incorporated herein by reference.



10.20

Guaranty dated November 30, 2004 by AIMCO Properties, L.P., for the benefit of GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corporation, filed on Form 8-K dated December 1, 2004 and incorporated herein by reference.



10.21

Completion/Repair and Security Agreement dated November 30, 2004 between Carriage Hills APX, a Michigan limited partnership and GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corporation, filed on Form 8-K dated December 1, 2004 and incorporated herein by reference.



10.22

Assignment of Security Instrument dated November 30, 2004 between GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corporation and Fannie Mae, filed on Form 8-K dated December 1, 2004 and incorporated herein by reference.



31.1

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



31.2

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



32.1

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



99A

Agreement of Limited Partnership for Angeles Partners X GP Limited Partnership between Angeles Realty Corporation and Angeles Partners X, L.P. entered into on September 15, 1993, filed in Form 10-QSB dated September 30, 1993, which is incorporated herein by reference.























Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Martha L. Long, certify that:

1.

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

2.

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



3.

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



4.

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



(a)

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



(b)

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



(c)

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



5.

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



(a)

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



(b)

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



Date: November 13, 2006

/s/Martha L. Long

Martha L. Long

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























Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Stephen B. Waters, certify that:

1.

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

2.

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



3.

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



4.

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



(a)

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



(b)

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



(c)

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



5.

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



(a)

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



(b)

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

Date: November 13, 2006

/s/Stephen B. Waters

Stephen B. Waters

Vice President of Angeles Realty Corporation,

equivalent of the chief financial officer

of the Partnership























Exhibit 32.1





Certification of CEO and CFO

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

As Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002







In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Angeles Partners X (the "Partnership"), for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Martha L. Long, as the equivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership, and Stephen B. Waters, as the equivalent of the chief financial officer of the Partnership, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:



(1)

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



(2)

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



| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/Martha L. Long      
| | Name: Martha L. Long   
| | Date: November 13, 2006
| |                        
| | /s/Stephen B. Waters   
| | Name: Stephen B. Waters
| | Date: November 13, 2006



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