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, 1998
------------------------------------------------

[ ] 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 600, LB70, Dallas, Texas, 75240
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip code)

Registrant's telephone number, including area code (972) 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 40

TOTAL OF 46 PAGES

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 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
600, 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, 1998.

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, were 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.

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 altered 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, 1998, the Partnership owned thirteen
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.

Business Plan:

As previously announced, the Partnership has retained PaineWebber, Incorporated
("PaineWebber") as its exclusive financial advisor to explore alternatives to
maximize the value of the Partnership, including, without limitation, a
transaction in which limited partnership interests in the Partnership are
converted into cash. The Partnership, through PaineWebber, provided financial
and other information to interested parties as part of an auction process and
until early March 1999 was conducting discussions with one bidder in an attempt
to reach a definitive agreement with respect to a sale transaction. In early
March 1999, because the Partnership had been unable to conclude negotiations for
a transaction with such bidder, the Partnership terminated such discussions and
commenced discussions with respect to a sale transaction with another
well-financed bidder who had been involved in the original auction process.
During the last full week of March, the Partnership entered into a 45 day
exclusivity agreement with such party. It is possible that the General Partner
and its affiliates will receive non-cash consideration for their ownership
interests in connection with any such transaction. There can be no assurance
regarding whether any such agreement will be reached nor the terms thereof.

The Partnership placed Sheraton Hills Apartments on the market for sale
effective August 1, 1997.

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 foreclosure 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 a discussion of competitive conditions at the Partnership's
properties.

Forward-Looking Information:

Within this document, certain statements are made as to the expected occupancy
trends, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows of the
Partnership for periods after December 31, 1998. All of these statements are
forward-looking statements made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements are not
historical and involve risks and uncertainties. The Partnership's actual
occupancy trends, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows for
future periods may differ materially due to several factors. These factors
include, but are not limited to, the Partnership's ability to control costs,
make necessary capital improvements, negotiate sales or refinancings of its
properties, and respond to changing economic and competitive factors.

Environmental Matters:

Environmental laws create potential liabilities that may affect property owners.
The environmental laws of Federal and certain state governments, for example,
impose liability on current and certain past owners of property from which there
is a release or threat of release of hazardous substances. This liability
includes costs of investigation and remediation of the hazardous substances and
natural resource damages. Liability for costs of investigation and remediation
is strict and may be imposed irrespective of whether the property owner was at
fault, although there are a number of defenses. Both governments and third
parties may seek recoveries under these laws.

Third parties also may seek recovery under the common law for damages to their
property or person, against owners of property from which there has been a
release of hazardous and other substances.

The presence of contamination or the failure to remediate contaminations may
adversely affect the owner's ability to sell or lease real estate or to borrow
using the real estate as collateral.

Various buildings at properties do or may contain building materials that are
the subject of various regulatory programs intended to protect human health.
Such building materials include, for example, asbestos, lead-based paint, and
lead plumbing components. The Company has implemented programs to deal with the
presence of those materials, which include, as appropriate, reduction of
potential exposure situations. The Company does not believe that the costs of
such programs are likely to have a material adverse effect. Failure to implement
such programs can result in regulatory violations or liability claims resulting
from alleged exposure to such materials.

In connection with the proposed sale transaction as more fully described above,
Phase I environmental site assessments have been completed for each property
owned by the Partnership. Such environmental assessments performed on the
properties have not revealed any environmental liability that the Partnership
believes would have a material adverse effect on the Partnership's business,
assets, or results of operations. The Partnership has not been notified by any
governmental authority of any non-compliance, liability or other claim in
connection with any of its properties. There can be no assurances, however, that
environmental liabilities have not developed since such environmental
assessments were prepared, or that future uses or conditions (including, without
limitation, changes in applicable environmental laws and regulations) will not
result in imposition of environmental liability.

Other Information:

In August 1995, High River Limited Partnership, a Delaware limited partnership
controlled by Carl C. Icahn ("High River") made an unsolicited tender 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 September 1996,
High River made another unsolicited tender offer to purchase any and all of the
outstanding Units of the Partnership for a purchase price of $180 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 tender offers made with respect to the
Partnership and not tender their Units. The General Partner believes that as of
February 1, 1999, High River has purchased approximately 14.2% of the
outstanding Units pursuant to the tender offers. In addition, all litigation
filed by High River, Mr. Icahn and his affiliates in connection with the tender
offers have been dismissed without prejudice.

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

The table below sets forth the real estate investment portfolio of the
Partnership at December 31, 1998. The buildings and the land on which they are
located are owned by the Partnership in fee, subject in each case 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.

Net Basis 1998 Date
Property Description of Property Debt Property Tax Acquired
- -------- ----------- --------------- -------------- ------------- --------
Real Estate Investments:

Berkley Hills (1) Apartments

Madison, TN 251 units $ 1,930,102 $ 3,163,101 $ 82,176 6/79

Cherry Hills (2) Apartments
Wichita, KS 348 units 3,907,920 4,386,254 78,722 6/80

Forest Park
Village (3) Apartments
Columbus, OH 376 units 3,336,937 5,925,000 194,155 12/79

Heather Square Apartments
Dallas, TX 288 units 3,583,673 2,983,359 187,113 10/79

Lantern Tree (4) Apartments
Omaha, NE 110 units 1,270,282 2,275,537 65,398 7/79

Meridian West (5) Apartments
Puyallup, WA 181 units 2,069,819 3,173,307 82,063 1/80

Pennbrook (6) Apartments
Dallas, TX 216 units 2,865,573 3,099,899 167,907 1/80

Rockborough (7) Apartments
Addison, TX 136 units 1,976,807 2,094,218 81,556 1/80

Rolling Hills (8) Apartments
Louisville, KY 400 units 3,198,082 6,650,000 78,294 9/79

Net Basis 1998 Date
Property Description of Property Debt Property Tax Acquired
- -------- ----------- --------------- -------------- ------------- --------

Ruskin Place (9) Apartments

Lincoln, NE 270 units 2,665,592 4,460,660 152,874 12/79

Westgate (10) Apartments
Lansing, MI 264 units 2,420,779 5,697,461 136,628 12/79

Williamsburg (11) Apartments
Shreveport, LA 194 units 2,024,194 2,577,772 81,919 12/79
-------------- ------------- ------------

$ 31,249,760 $ 46,486,568 $ 1,388,805
============== ============= ============

Asset Held for Sale:

Sheraton Hills Apartments
Nashville, TN 272 units $ 3,140,461 $ 2,702,620 $ 110,889 6/79
============== ============= ============
- ----------------------------

Total: Apartments - 3,306 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.

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

1998 1997 1996 1995 1994
------------- ------------- -------------- ------------- ----------
Real Estate Investments:

Berkley Hills

Occupancy Rate............ 93% 94% 93% 98% 98%
Rent Per Square Foot...... $ 6.31 $ 6.10 $ 5.94 $ 5.69 $ 5.35

Cherry Hills
Occupancy Rate............ 89% 98% 95% 89% 89%
Rent Per Square Foot...... $ 6.45 $ 6.50 $ 6.21 $ 5.75 $ 5.80

Forest Park Village
Occupancy Rate............ 93% 90% 90% 85% 92%
Rent Per Square Foot...... $ 6.68 $ 6.26 $ 6.24 $ 5.80 $ 5.57

Heather Square
Occupancy Rate............ 96% 98% 97% 99% 99%
Rent Per Square Foot...... $ 8.24 $ 7.94 $ 7.60 $ 7.00 $ 6.61

Lantern Tree
Occupancy Rate............ 88% 91% 89% 99% 99%
Rent Per Square Foot...... $ 7.74 $ 7.79 $ 7.61 $ 7.58 $ 7.07

Meridian West
Occupancy Rate............ 97% 93% 95% 93% 90%
Rent Per Square Foot...... $ 8.05 $ 7.75 $ 7.39 $ 7.18 $ 6.99

Pennbrook
Occupancy Rate............ 98% 96% 97% 98% 94%
Rent Per Square Foot...... $ 8.86 $ 8.43 $ 8.12 $ 7.62 $ 7.23

Rockborough
Occupancy Rate............ 98% 96% 99% 97% 99%
Rent Per Square Foot...... $ 8.93 $ 8.42 $ 8.25 $ 7.80 $ 7.40

Rolling Hills
Occupancy Rate............ 93% 97% 95% 94% 97%
Rent Per Square Foot...... $ 5.06 $ 4.92 $ 4.81 $ 4.66 $ 4.33

1998 1997 1996 1995 1994
------------- ------------- -------------- ------------- ----------
Real Estate Investments:

Ruskin Place
Occupancy Rate............ 97% 99% 94% 97% 96%
Rent Per Square Foot...... $ 7.55 $ 7.20 $ 7.08 $ 6.78 $ 6.47

Westgate
Occupancy Rate............ 89% 92% 87% 86% 92%
Rent Per Square Foot...... $ 6.97 $ 6.83 $ 6.52 $ 6.66 $ 6.51

Williamsburg
Occupancy Rate............ 93% 93% 92% 95% 99%
Rent Per Square Foot...... $ 6.53 $ 6.41 $ 6.39 $ 6.22 $ 5.86

Asset Held for Sale:

Sheraton Hills
Occupancy Rate............ 96% 96% 90% 98% 97%
Rent Per Square Foot...... $ 6.46 $ 6.26 $ 5.72 $ 5.53 $ 5.14

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
- ----------------------

Real Estate Investments:

Berkley Hills Apartments
- ------------------------

New construction is beginning to have an effect on Berkley Hills Apartments and
the surrounding Nashville area. Rental specials were prevalent throughout 1998
and are expected to continue in 1999. Market occupancy rates have fallen from
the high to the mid 90's. Berkley Hills works to maintain occupancy levels
through resident retention and outside marketing programs. Continuing capital
improvements are necessary for Berkley Hills to remain competitive with nearby
apartment communities. Most of the new construction is directed at upscale
single residents, while Berkley Hills targets middle class families and singles.

Cherry Hills Apartments
- -----------------------

Cherry Hills Apartments is one of Wichita's finer apartment communities in terms
of interior and exterior appearance. However, layoffs at local employers during
the fourth quarter of 1998, combined with new apartment projects in the Wichita
area are causing decreased occupancy, decreased rental rates, increased
marketing expenditures and special promotions throughout the market. Cherry
Hills year-end occupancy rate of 89% trails the market average of 91%. Rental
rates, which have been higher than competitors' rates, are being adjusted until
occupancy stabilizes.

Forest Park Village Apartments
- ------------------------------

Forest Park Village Apartments expects to complete a five-year capital
improvement program later this year. 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.

Heather Square Apartments
- -------------------------

Occupancy rates at Heather Square Apartments typically run 1 or 2 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 in the
property's submarket has roughly equaled newly constructed units in the past
three years.

Lantern Tree Apartments
- -----------------------

New apartment construction and staffing turnover contributed to increased
vacancy at Lantern Tree during 1998. However, the property has a desirable
location, close to a newly developed business park. Lantern Tree compares well
with its competition due to spacious and attractive floor plans. A turnaround in
occupancy rates is expected at Lantern Tree as new construction is absorbed, and
a stable staff contributes operating efficiencies. The property appeals to
single, upper-middle class residents. The principal competitive disadvantage of
the property is its location which is set back from the main thoroughfare
reducing its drive-by visibility.

Meridian West Apartments
- ------------------------

The economy in Meridian West Apartments' submarket remains strong, leading to
improved operating results at the property. Vacancy losses decreased in both
1997 and 1998. The property increased base rental rates in 1997 and 1998, after
a period of no or very small increases. The improved cash flow is being
reinvested in the property to improve the competitiveness of the property.
Meridian West competes primarily with better quality apartment communities, and
thus the Partnership generally expects rental and occupancy rates lower than
local market rates.

Pennbrook Apartments
- --------------------

Pennbrook Apartments' year end occupancy rate of 98% exceeds the 95% average of
the Dallas 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 three
years, new apartment construction has roughly equaled the number of apartment
units absorbed by the market. New construction is generally marketed toward the
higher end of the market, and should have little effect on Pennbrook.

Rockborough Apartments
- ----------------------

Rockborough Apartments boasts excellent curb appeal, which has enabled the
property to maintain occupancy levels above the 96% average occupancy for the
property's submarket. Rockborough compares well to the established apartment
communities in the area. There is new construction in the area, but rental rates
are substantially higher than the rates charged at Rockborough. The Dallas area
economy is expected to remain strong. Most of the new construction in the area
will be for high-quality apartment communities, and should have little effect on
Rockborough.

Rolling Hills Apartments
- ------------------------

The area surrounding Rolling Hills Apartments continues to experience strong
growth. Capital improvements at Rolling Hills the past three 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 unit interiors are being updated to better compete with the
newer properties in Rolling Hills' submarket. The property's average occupancy
rate is in line with the Louisville market's 93% average, but average rental
rates are lower than market rates. Rolling Hills is a good quality property
competing against properties of even better quality.

Ruskin Place Apartments
- -----------------------

Vinyl residing at Ruskin Place Apartments has improved the property's curb
appeal and resulted in a year-end occupancy rate of 97% as compared to the
market's 93%. Ruskin Place Apartments has steadily improved its performance over
the past several years despite competitive pressures from newer apartment
properties in the Lincoln market. 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.

Westgate Apartments
- -------------------

The exterior appearance of Westgate Apartments is much improved as a result of
several capital projects completed during 1997 and 1998. Additional capital
improvements are needed at Westgate to maintain the property's position in the
market. The exterior and interiors of the units are dated. 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 2.6%. The property also has a
good location in a desirable school district.

Williamsburg Apartments
- -----------------------

Competition from new and refurbished apartment communities is putting pressure
on Williamsburg Apartments' financial performance. Although the occupancy rate
remains slightly above the city-wide average, rental rate increases will be
limited for the next year or two. Improvements in cost controls and resident
retention will be key to improved operating results. The property is in good
condition, with only minor capital improvements needed. The property offers
attractive floor plans with interiors that are being upgraded with new fixtures.
Nearby Barksdale Air Force Base and a growing gambling industry provide the
employment base for many of the property's tenants.

Asset Held for Sale:

Sheraton Hills Apartments
- -------------------------

The year-end occupancy rate at Sheraton Hills Apartments was 96%, above the
submarket's average of 94%. The Nashville apartment market is overbuilt, and
developers are planning new apartment projects for 1999. 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. Sheraton Hills will continue to focus on selected capital
improvements and its excellent reputation for service that has promoted
decreased tenant turnover. On August 1, 1997, the Partnership placed Sheraton
Hills on the market for sale.

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:

James F. Schofield, Gerald C. Gillett, Donna S. Gillett, Jeffrey Homburger,
Elizabeth Jung, Robert Lewis, and Warren Heller et al. v. McNeil Partners L.P.,
McNeil Investors, Inc., McNeil Real Estate Management, Inc., Robert A. McNeil,
Carole J. McNeil, McNeil Pacific Investors Fund 1972, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate
Fund IX, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund X, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XI,
Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XII, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XIV, Ltd.,
McNeil Real Estate Fund XV, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XX, L.P., McNeil Real
Estate Fund XXI, L.P., McNeil Real Estate Fund XXII, L.P., McNeil Real Estate
Fund XXIII, L.P., McNeil Real Estate Fund XXIV, L.P., McNeil Real Estate Fund
XXV, L.P., McNeil Real Estate Fund XXVI, L.P., and McNeil Real Estate Fund
XXVII, L.P., Hearth Hollow Associates, McNeil Midwest Properties I, L.P. and
Regency North Associates, L.P., - Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC133799 (Class and Derivative Action
Complaint).

The action involves purported class and derivative actions brought by limited
partners of each of the limited partnerships that were named as nominal
defendants as listed above (the "Partnerships"). Plaintiffs allege that McNeil
Investors, Inc., its affiliate McNeil Real Estate Management, Inc. and three of
their senior officers and/or directors (collectively, the "Defendants") breached
their fiduciary duties and certain obligations under the respective Amended
Partnership Agreement. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have rendered such
Units highly illiquid and artificially depressed the prices that are available
for Units on the resale market. Plaintiffs also allege that Defendants engaged
in a course of conduct to prevent the acquisition of Units by an affiliate of
Carl Icahn by disseminating purportedly false, misleading and inadequate
information. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants 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.

On December 16, 1996, the Plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended complaint.
Plaintiffs are suing for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract and an
accounting, alleging, among other things, that the management fees paid to the
McNeil affiliates over the last six years are excessive, that these fees should
be reduced retroactively and that the respective Amended Partnership Agreements
governing the Partnerships are invalid.

Defendants filed a demurrer to the consolidated and amended complaint and a
motion to strike on February 14, 1997, seeking to dismiss the consolidated and
amended complaint in all respects. A hearing on Defendant's demurrer and motion
to strike was held on May 5, 1997. The Court granted Defendants' demurrer,
dismissing the consolidated and amended complaint with leave to amend. On
October 31, 1997, the Plaintiffs filed a second consolidated and amended
complaint. The case was stayed pending settlement discussions. A Stipulation of
Settlement dated September 15, 1998 has been signed by the parties. Preliminary
Court approval was received on October 6, 1998. A hearing for Final Approval of
Settlement, initially scheduled for December 17, 1998, has been continued to May
25, 1999.

Because McNeil Real Estate Fund XXIII, L.P., Hearth Hollow Associates, McNeil
Midwest Properties I, L.P. and Regency North Associates, L.P. would be part of
the transaction contemplated in the settlement and Plaintiffs claim that an
effort should be made to sell the McNeil Partnerships, Plaintiffs have included
allegations with respect to McNeil Real Estate Fund XXIII, L.P., Hearth Hollow
Associates, McNeil Midwest Properties I, L.P. and Regency North Associates, L.P.
in the third consolidated and amended complaint.

Plaintiff's counsel intends to seek an order awarding attorney's fees and
reimbursements of their out-of-pocket expenses. The amount of such award is
undeterminable until final approval is received from the court. Fees and
expenses shall be allocated amongst the Partnerships on a pro rata basis, based
upon tangible asset value of each such partnership, less total liabilities,
calculated in accordance with the Amended Partnership Agreements for the quarter
most recently ended.

For a discussion of the Southmark bankruptcy, see Item 1 - Business.

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 4,102 as of February 1, 1999

(C) The Partnership paid distributions of $2,300,008 and $2,749,992 to the
limited partners in 1998 and 1997, respectively. During the last week of
March 1999, the Partnership distributed approximately $749,000 to limited
partners of record as of March 1, 1999. The Partnership accrued
distributions of MID of $1,164,510 and $1,137,022 for the benefit of the
General Partner for the years ended December 31, 1998 and 1997,
respectively, of which $1,518,681 remains unpaid at December 31, 1998. 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
continue distributions to the limited partners.

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 - Financial
Statements and Supplementary Data.

Statements of Years Ended December 31,
Operations 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994
- ------------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------

Rental revenue ................... $ 20,638,884 $ 19,947,518 $ 19,732,110 $ 19,123,434 $ 18,202,306
Total revenue .................... 20,818,593 20,616,269 19,964,950 19,567,182 18,642,220
Net income (loss) before
extraordinary items ............ 483,203 977,262 (293,982) (328,996) (387,787)
Extraordinary items .............. (405,235) -- -- -- --
Net income (loss) ................ 77,968 977,262 (293,982) (328,996) (387,787)

Net income (loss) per limited
partnership unit:
Net income (loss) before
extraordinary items ............ $ 4.17 $ 2.46 $ (13.21) $ (9.19) $ (9.21)
Extraordinary items .............. (3.50) -- -- -- --
------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
Net income (loss) ................ $ .67 $ 2.46 $ (13.21) $ (9.19) $ (9.21)
============ ============ ============ ============ ============

Distributions per limited
partnership unit: .............. $ 20.88 $ 24.96 $ -- $ -- $ --
============ ============ ============ ============ ============

December 31,
Balance Sheets 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994
- -------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------

Real estate investments, net... $ 31,249,760 $ 33,419,436 $ 38,308,605 $ 42,434,162 $ 42,830,552
Asset held for sale............ 3,140,461 3,009,553 -- -- --
Total assets................... 41,373,306 44,051,144 47,650,109 49,970,886 51,749,891
Mortgage notes payable, net.... 49,189,188 49,745,307 50,600,006 51,390,822 52,098,952
Partners' deficit.............. (12,124,605) (8,738,055) (5,828,303) (4,440,760) (3,001,001)

See Item 7 - Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and
Results of Operations. The Partnership sold Westridge Apartments on July 30,
1996.

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 1998, the
Partnership owned thirteen apartment properties. All of the Partnership's
properties are subject to mortgage notes.

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

1998 compared to 1997

Revenues:

Rental revenue increased $691,366 or 3.5% in 1998 as compared to rental revenue
earned in 1997. Rental revenue increased at 11 of the Partnership's 13
properties. All of the Partnership's properties increased base rental rates
during 1998. The increased base rental rates were complemented by increased
average occupancy rates at Forest Park Village Apartments, Rockborough
Apartments, Pennbrook Apartments and Ruskin Place Apartments. These four
properties increased their total rental revenue by 7.0%, 6.1%, 5.1% and 4.9%,
respectively. Average vacancy and other rental losses were unchanged at Berkley
Hills Apartments and Meridian West Apartments. These two properties reported
increased rental revenue of 3.6% and 3.8%, respectively. Increased base rental
rates were partially offset by increased vacancy and other rental losses at
Heather Square Apartments, Rolling Hills Apartments, Sheraton Hills Apartments,
Westgate Apartments and Williamsburg Apartments. These five properties reported
increased rental revenue of 3.7%, 2.9%, 3.2%, 2.0% and 2.0%, respectively.
Increased base rental rates were more than offset by increased vacancy and other
losses at Cherry Hills Apartments and Lantern Tree Apartments. These two
properties reported 0.7% and 0.6% decreases, respectively, in net rental revenue
for the year.

Interest revenue decreased 7.5% due to a decrease in the average balance of
Partnership cash and cash equivalents invested in interest-bearing accounts.

The Partnership reported a one-time gain on involuntary conversion in 1997
relating to a fire at Sheraton Hills Apartments. No such gain was reported in
1998.

Expenses:

Partnership expenses increased $696,383 or 3.5% in 1998 as compared to 1997.
Most expense items were comparable in 1998 to amounts reported in 1997. The
Partnership reported significant increases in personnel expenses, general and
administrative expenses, and general and administrative expenses paid to
affiliates.

Personnel expenses increased $294,846 or 12.2% in 1998 as compared to 1997. The
Partnership increased wage and salary rates and benefits in order to retain
property personnel in a competitive job market. The increases were reported by
all of the Partnership's properties, but were especially noticeable at Rolling
Hills Apartments, Pennbrook Apartments, Westgate Apartments and Williamsburg
Apartments. Increased personnel costs at these four properties exceeded 14%.

General and administrative expenses increased $612,466 to $778,596 in 1998. The
increase was attributable to costs incurred to explore alternatives to maximize
the value of the Partnership (see Liquidity and Capital Resources).

General and administrative expenses paid to affiliates increased $41,034 or 9.0%
in 1998 as compared to 1997. Costs associated with investor relation services
were charged to general and administrative during 1997. Investor relation
services, beginning in 1998, are now provided by an affiliate, which accounts
for the increase in general and administrative expenses paid to affiliates.

The Partnership incurred a $405,235 extraordinary loss in 1998. The Partnership
refinanced the Rolling Hills mortgage note during 1998. Unamortized deferred
borrowing costs associated with the prior mortgage note amounted to $405,235.
The Partnership wrote off the unamortized costs when the Partnership closed
escrow on the new Rolling Hills mortgage note.

1997 compared to 1996

Revenues:

Rental revenue increased $215,408 or 1.1% in 1997 compared to rental revenue
achieved in 1996. Excluding rental revenue from Westridge Apartments, sold by
the Partnership on July 30, 1996, rental revenue increased $613,921 or 3.1% in
1997 compared to 1996. Rental revenues increased at 11 of the Partnership's 13
remaining properties. Rental revenue was unchanged at Forest Park Village
Apartments and Williamsburg Apartments as the increases in base rental rates
were matched by comparable increases in vacancy losses. Of the Partnership's 11
other properties, 10 increased base rental rates an average of 3.5%. Meridian
West Apartments did not increase base rental rates, but rental revenue improved
as vacancy losses decreased by 19.1%. Improving occupancy rates also boosted
rental revenue at Cherry Hills Apartments, Lantern Tree Apartments, and Westgate
Apartments.

In 1997, the Partnership incurred a gain on involuntary conversion totaling
$474,376 relating to a fire that destroyed twelve apartment units at Sheraton
Hills Apartments. No such gains were recorded in 1996.

Expenses:

Partnership expenses decreased $619,925 or 3.1% in 1997 compared to 1996.
However, after excluding both the loss on sale of Westridge Apartments and
expenses associated with operations at Westridge Apartments before its sale,
expenses remained virtually unchanged in 1997 compared to 1996. Decreases in
general and administrative expenses and general and administrative expenses paid
to affiliates were partially offset by increased property taxes.

Excluding Westridge Apartments for 1996, property taxes for 1997 increased
$114,337 or 8.3% over property taxes for 1996. The increase was due to increases
assessed valuation and tax rates in Dallas County, Texas, where three of the
Partnership's properties are located.

General and administrative expenses decreased $172,168 or 51%. The decrease is
attributable to costs relating to the evaluation and dissemination of
information with regards to an unsolicited tender offer in 1996. No such costs
were incurred in 1997. Decreased tender offer costs were partially offset by
investor services expenses that were paid to a non-affiliate vendor beginning in
1997. Prior to 1997, investor services were provided by an affiliate of the
General Partner, and the related expenses were reported with general and
administrative expenses paid to affiliates.

General and administrative expenses paid to affiliates decreased $83,821 or
15.6%. Such expenses are generally charged based on the number of properties
under management. The sale of Westridge Apartments during 1996, as well as
decreased expenses incurred by the affiliates, both contributed to the decrease
in expenses paid to affiliates. Also contributing to the decrease in general and
administrative expenses paid to affiliates was the reclassification of investor
services expenses to general and administrative expenses as discussed in the
preceding paragraph.

Due to the sale of Westridge Apartments on July 30, 1996, the Partnership
recognized a $220,157 loss on sale of real estate in 1996. No properties were
disposed of during 1997.

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

During the three year period ended December 31, 1998, the Partnership's net
income totaled $761,248. During the same three year period, the Partnership
generated $14,217,621 of cash flow from operating activities. Cash provided by
operating activities increased $459,526 or 9.5% in 1998 as compared to 1997. A
9.2% increase in cash paid to suppliers was more than offset by an increase in
cash received from tenants and decreases in interest paid, property taxes paid
and escrowed, and cash paid to affiliates.

The Partnership continued to invest in capital improvements at its properties
during 1998. The Partnership invested $1,841,522 in capital improvements during
1998. 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 $1,601,000 for capital improvements in
1999.

The Partnership refinanced the Forest Park Village mortgage note and the Rolling
Hills mortgage note during 1998. Proceeds from the refinancings were minimal,
only $198,107. Most of the proceeds from the refinancings were used to pay
deferred borrowing costs associated with the new borrowings. The refinancings
reduced the interest rates on the two mortgage notes from 9.13% to 6.97% for
Forest Park Village, and from 9.25% to 7.00% for Rolling Hills. However, the new
interest rates are variable rates based on the London Interbank Offered Rate.
The Partnership also modified and extended the Sheraton Hills mortgage note
during 1998. The interest rate on the modified note was changed from a variable
rate to a fixed rate of 6.90%. The Partnership's next maturing mortgage note is
the Pennbrook mortgage note, which matures in February 2000. The General Partner
has begun exploring financing alternatives for the Pennbrook mortgage note.

Short-term liquidity:

At December 31, 1998, the Partnership held cash and cash equivalents of
$3,166,577, a decrease of $164,259 from the balance at the end of 1997. The
General Partner anticipates that cash generated from operations during 1999 will
be sufficient to fund the partnership's operating expenses, budgeted capital
improvements, and monthly debt service requirements. Cash reserves are adequate
for anticipated operations during 1999.

Though reduced in scope from amounts incurred in previous years, the Partnership
will continue to invest substantial sums in capital improvements for the
Partnership's properties. The Partnership has budgeted $1,601,000 for capital
improvements for 1999. 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 future repair and maintenance
expenses from amounts that would otherwise be incurred.

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 approximately $6.3 million
of capital improvements made by the Partnership during the past three years will
yield improved cash flow from property operations in 1999.

While the present outlook for the Partnership's liquidity is favorable, market
conditions may change and property operations can deteriorate. In that event,
the Partnership would require other sources of working capital. No such other
sources have been identified, and the Partnership has no established lines of
credit. Other possible actions to resolve working capital deficiencies include
refinancing or renegotiating terms of existing loans, deferring major capital
expenditures on Partnership properties except where improvements are expected to
enhance the competitiveness or marketability of the properties, or arranging
working capital support from affiliates. No affiliate support has been required
in the past, and there is no assurance that support from affiliates would be
provided in the future, since neither the General Partner nor any affiliates
have any obligation in this regard.

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 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 years ended December 31,
1998, 1997 and 1996, net income of $3,898, $706,613 and $1,161,697,
respectively, was allocated to the General Partner. The limited partners
received allocations of net income of $74,070 and $270,649 and an allocation of
net loss of $1,455,679 for the years ended December 31, 1998, 1997 and 1996,
respectively.

The Partnership distributed $2,300,008 and $2,749,992 to the limited partners in
1998 and 1997, respectively. Approximately $2,042,000 of the 1997 distribution
represented proceeds from the sale of Westridge Apartments. The rest of 1997's
distribution, and 1998's distribution represented distributions of cash flow
from operations and from cash reserves of the Partnership. During the last week
of March 1999, the Partnership distributed approximately $749,000 to the limited
partners of record as of March 1, 1999. The General Partner will continue to
monitor the cash reserves and working capital needs of the Partnership to
determine when cash flows will support additional distributions to the limited
partners.

The Partnership paid $903,815 and $1,370,360 of MID to the General Partner in
1997 and 1996, respectively. No MID payments were paid to the General Partner
during 1998. The General Partner has elected to defer payment of administrative
reimbursements and MID so that the Partnership can pay distributions to the
limited partners.

YEAR 2000 DISCLOSURE
- --------------------

State of readiness
- ------------------

The year 2000 problem is the result of computer programs being written using two
digits rather than four to define the applicable year. Any programs that have
time-sensitive software may recognize a date using "00" as the year 1900 rather
than the year 2000. This could result in major systems failure or
miscalculations.

Management has assessed its information technology ("IT") infrastructure to
identify any systems that could be affected by the year 2000 problem. The IT
used by the Partnership for financial reporting and significant accounting
functions was made year 2000 compliant during recent systems conversions. The
software utilized for these functions are licensed by third party vendors who
have warranted that their systems are year 2000 compliant.

Management is in the process of evaluating the mechanical and embedded
technological systems at the various properties. Management has inventoried all
such systems and queried suppliers, vendors and manufacturers to determine year
2000 compliance. Management will complete assessment of findings by May 1, 1999.
In circumstances of non-compliance management will work with the vendor to
remedy the problem or seek alternative suppliers who will be in compliance.
Management believes that the remediation of any outstanding year 2000 conversion
issues will not have a material or adverse effect on the Partnership's
operations. However, no estimates can be made as to the potential adverse impact
resulting from the failure of third party service providers and vendors to be
year 2000 compliant.

Cost
- ----

The cost of IT and embedded technology systems testing and upgrades is not
expected to be material to the Partnership. Because all the IT systems have been
upgraded over the last three years, all such systems were compliant, or made
compliant at no additional cost by third party vendors. Management anticipates
the costs of assessing, testing, and if necessary replacing embedded technology
components will be less than $50,000. Such costs will be funded from operations
of the Partnership.

Risks
- -----

Ultimately, the potential impact of the year 2000 issue will depend not only on
the corrective measures the Partnership undertakes, but also on the way in which
the year 2000 issue is addressed by government agencies and entities that
provide services or supplies to the Partnership. Management has not determined
the most likely worst case scenario to the Partnership. As management studies
the findings of its property systems assessment and testing, management will
develop a better understanding of what would be the worst case scenario.
Management believes that progress on all areas is proceeding and that the
Partnership will experience no adverse effect as a result of the year 2000
issue. However, there is no assurance that this will be the case.

Contingency plans
- -----------------

Management is developing contingency plans to address potential year 2000
non-compliance of IT and embedded technology systems. Management believes that
failure of any IT system could have an adverse impact on operations. However,
management believes that alternative systems are available that could be
utilized to minimize such impact. Management believes that any failure in the
embedded technology systems could have an adverse impact on that property's
performance. Management will assess these risks and develop plans to mitigate
possible failures by June, 1999.

ITEM 7A. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK
- -------- ----------------------------------------------------------

Not Applicable.

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

Page
Number

INDEX TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Financial Statements:

Report of Independent Public Accountants....................................... 20

Balance Sheets at December 31, 1998 and 1997................................... 21

Statements of Operations for each of the three years in the period
ended December 31, 1998..................................................... 22

Statements of Partners' Deficit for each of the three years in the
period ended December 31, 1998.............................................. 23

Statements of Cash Flows for each of the three years in the
period ended December 31, 1998.............................................. 24

Notes to Financial Statements.................................................. 26

Financial Statement Schedule:

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

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.

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, 1998 and 1997, and
the related statements of operations, partners' deficit and cash flows for each
of the three years in the period ended December 31, 1998. 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, 1998 and 1997, and the results of its operations and its
cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 1998, 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 19, 1999

McNEIL REAL ESTATE FUND IX, LTD.

BALANCE SHEETS

December 31,
---------------------------------
1998 1997
------------- -------------
ASSETS
- ------

Real estate investments:

Land ................................................ $ 6,074,303 $ 6,074,303
Buildings and improvements .......................... 78,522,699 76,812,085
------------ ------------
84,597,002 82,886,388
Less: Accumulated depreciation ..................... (53,347,242) (49,466,952)
------------ ------------
31,249,760 33,419,436

Asset held for sale .................................... 3,140,461 3,009,553

Cash and cash equivalents .............................. 3,166,577 3,330,836
Cash segregated for security deposits .................. 627,813 622,602
Cash restricted for mortgage payments .................. 545,624 --
Accounts receivable .................................... 46,633 92,135
Prepaid expenses and other assets ...................... 150,907 181,856
Escrow deposits ........................................ 1,126,898 1,663,701
Deferred borrowing costs, net of accumulated
amortization of $899,576 and $1,144,486 at
December 31, 1998 and 1997, respectively ............ 1,318,633 1,731,025
------------ ------------

$ 41,373,306 $ 44,051,144
============ ============

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

Mortgage notes payable, net ............................ $ 49,189,188 $ 49,745,307
Accounts payable ....................................... 110 99,710
Accrued interest ....................................... 333,927 361,422
Accrued property taxes ................................. 989,317 1,136,213
Other accrued expenses ................................. 357,506 251,555
Payable to affiliates - General Partner ................ 2,042,507 591,289
Security deposits and deferred rental revenue .......... 585,356 603,703
------------ ------------
53,497,911 52,789,199
------------ ------------

Partners' deficit:
Limited partners - 110,200 limited partnership
units authorized, 110,170 limited partnership
units issued and outstanding ...................... (7,734,963) (5,509,025)
General Partner ..................................... (4,389,642) (3,229,030)
------------ ------------
(12,124,605) (8,738,055)
------------ ------------
$ 41,373,306 $ 44,051,144
============ ============

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

McNEIL REAL ESTATE FUND IX, LTD.

STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

For the Years Ended December 31,
-----------------------------------------------------
1998 1997 1996
------------ ------------ ------------
Revenue:

Rental revenue ......................... $ 20,638,884 $ 19,947,518 $ 19,732,110
Interest ............................... 179,709 194,375 232,840
Gain on involuntary conversion ......... -- 474,376 --
------------ ------------ ------------
Total revenue ........................ 20,818,593 20,616,269 19,964,950
------------ ------------ ------------

Expenses:
Interest ............................... 4,513,501 4,776,243 4,796,060
Depreciation ........................... 3,880,290 3,944,030 4,173,260
Property taxes ......................... 1,499,694 1,489,209 1,392,027
Personnel expenses ..................... 2,714,327 2,419,481 2,437,597
Repairs and maintenance ................ 2,757,251 2,697,986 2,621,322
Property management fees -
affiliates ........................... 1,022,893 992,361 978,168
Utilities .............................. 1,592,482 1,630,672 1,634,169
Other property operating expenses ...... 1,081,446 1,069,019 1,130,177
General and administrative ............. 778,596 166,130 338,298
General and administrative -
affiliates ........................... 494,910 453,876 537,697
Loss on sale of real estate ............ -- -- 220,157
------------ ------------ ------------
Total expenses ....................... 20,335,390 19,639,007 20,258,932
------------ ------------ ------------

Income (loss) before extraordinary
item ................................... 483,203 977,262 (293,983)
Extraordinary item ........................ (405,235) -- --
------------ ------------ ------------

Net income (loss) ......................... $ 77,968 $ 977,262 $ (293,982)
============ ============ ============

Net income (loss) allocated to limited
partners ............................... $ 74,070 $ 270,649 $ (1,455,679)
Net income allocated to the
General Partner ........................ 3,898 706,613 1,161,697
------------ ------------ ------------

Net income (loss) ......................... $ 77,968 $ 977,262 $ (293,982)
============ ============ ============

Net income (loss) per limited
partnership unit:
Income (loss) before extraordinary
item ................................. $ 4.17 $ 2.46 $ (13.21)
Extraordinary item ..................... (3.50) -- --
------------ ------------ ------------

Net income (loss) per limited
partnership unit ..................... $ .67 $ 2.46 $ (13.21)
============ ============ ============

Distributions per limited partnership
unit ................................... $ 20.88 $ 24.96 $ --
============ ============ ============

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

McNEIL REAL ESTATE FUND IX, LTD.

STATEMENTS OF PARTNERS' DEFICIT

For the Years Ended December 31, 1998, 1997 and 1996

Total
General Limited Partners'
Partner Partners Deficit
------------- ------------- -------------

Balance at December 31, 1995 ........... $ (2,826,757) $ (1,574,003) $ (4,400,760)

Net income (loss) ...................... 1,161,697 (1,455,679) (293,982)

Management Incentive Distribution....... (1,133,561) -- (1,133,561)
------------ ------------ ------------

Balance at December 31, 1996 ........... (2,798,621) (3,029,682) (5,828,303)

Net income ............................. 706,613 270,649 977,262

Management Incentive Distribution ...... (1,137,022) -- (1,137,022)

Distributions to limited partners ...... -- (2,749,992) (2,749,992)
------------ ------------ ------------

Balance at December 31, 1997 ........... (3,229,030) (5,509,025) (8,738,055)

Net income ............................. 3,898 74,070 77,968

Management Incentive Distribution ...... (1,164,510) -- (1,164,510)

Distributions to limited partners ...... -- (2,300,008) (2,300,008)
------------ ------------ ------------

Balance at December 31, 1998 ........... $ (4,389,642) $ (7,734,963) $(12,124,605)
============ ============ ============

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

McNEIL REAL ESTATE FUND IX, LTD.

STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

Increase (Decrease) in Cash and Cash Equivalents

For the Years Ended December 31,
-------------------------------------------------------
1998 1997 1996
------------- ------------- -------------

Cash flows from operating activities:

Cash received from tenants .............. $ 20,654,298 $ 19,915,413 $ 19,717,808
Cash paid to suppliers .................. (8,682,398) (7,954,190) (8,488,048)
Cash paid to affiliates ................. (1,231,095) (1,367,871) (1,507,719)
Interest received ....................... 179,709 194,375 232,840
Interest paid ........................... (4,298,253) (4,485,836) (4,557,296)
Property taxes paid and escrowed ........ (1,307,661) (1,446,817) (1,349,638)
------------ ------------ ------------
Net cash provided by operating
activities .............................. 5,314,600 4,855,074 4,047,947
------------ ------------ ------------

Cash flows from investing activities:
Additions to real estate
investments ........................... (1,841,522) (2,064,414) (2,398,428)
Insurance proceeds for fire and
hail damage ........................... -- 546,069 --
Proceeds from sale of real estate ....... -- -- 2,042,384
Mortgage note receivable ................ -- 1,550,000 (1,550,000)
------------ ------------ ------------
Net cash provided by (used in)
investing activities .................... (1,841,522) 31,655 (1,906,044)
------------ ------------ ------------

Cash flows from financing activities:
Principal payments on mortgage
notes payable ......................... (800,763) (903,607) (829,604)
Cash restricted for mortgage
payments .............................. (545,624) -- --
Net proceeds from refinancing of
mortgage notes payable ................ 198,107 -- --
Additions to deferred borrowing
costs ................................. (189,049) -- --
Management Incentive Distribution ....... -- (903,815) (1,370,360)
Distributions to limited partners ....... (2,300,008) (2,749,992) --
------------ ------------ ------------
Net cash used in financing
activities .............................. (3,637,337) (4,557,414) (2,199,964)
------------ ------------ ------------

Net increase (decrease) in cash
and cash equivalents .................... (164,259) 329,315 (58,061)

Cash and cash equivalents at
beginning of year ....................... 3,330,836 3,001,521 3,059,582
------------ ------------ ------------

Cash and cash equivalents at end
of year ................................. $ 3,166,577 $ 3,330,836 $ 3,001,521
============ ============ ============

See discussion of noncash investing and financing activities in Note 2 -
"Transactions with Affiliates" and Note 7 - "Refinancing of Mortgage Notes
Payable."
See accompanying notes to financial statements.

McNEIL REAL ESTATE FUND IX, LTD.

STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

Reconciliation of Net Income (Loss) to
Net Cash Provided by Operating Activities

For the Years Ended December 31,
----------------------------------------------------
1998 1997 1996
----------- ----------- ------------

Net income (loss) .......................... $ 77,968 $ 977,262 $ (293,982)
----------- ----------- -----------

Adjustments to reconcile net income
(loss) to net cash provided by
operating activities:
Depreciation ............................ 3,880,290 3,944,030 4,173,260
Amortization of discounts on
mortgage notes payable ................ 46,537 48,908 38,788
Amortization of deferred borrowing
costs ................................. 196,206 248,633 206,160
Extraordinary item ...................... 405,235 -- --
Gain on involuntary conversion .......... -- (474,376) --
Loss on sale of real estate ............. -- -- 220,157
Changes in assets and liabilities:
Cash segregated for security
deposits ............................ (5,211) (50,853) (37,140)
Accounts receivable ................... 45,502 (32,264) 54,496
Insurance proceeds receivable ......... -- 16,491 --
Prepaid expenses and other
assets .............................. 30,949 32,641 9,462
Escrow deposits ....................... 536,803 (262,053) 16,741
Accounts payable ...................... (99,600) 99,710 (266,777)
Accrued interest ...................... (27,495) (7,134) (6,184)
Accrued property taxes ................ (146,896) 208,110 (34,148)
Other accrued expenses ................ 105,951 (19,672) (34,795)
Payable to affiliates - General
Partner ............................. 286,708 78,366 8,146
Security deposits and deferred
rental revenue ...................... (18,347) 47,275 (6,237)
----------- ----------- -----------

Total adjustments ................. 5,236,632 3,877,812 4,341,929
----------- ----------- -----------

Net cash provided by operating
activities ............................ $ 5,314,600 $ 4,855,074 $ 4,047,947
=========== =========== ===========

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

McNEIL REAL ESTATE FUND IX, LTD.

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

December 31, 1998

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

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

McNeil Real Estate Fund IX, Ltd. (the "Partnership") was organized on May 1,
1978 as a limited partnership under the 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. The Partnership is governed by an amended and
restated partnership agreement 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 600, 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, 1998, the Partnership owned 13 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 tier
partnerships listed on the next page for the years ended December 31, 1998, 1997
and 1996. 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.

% of Ownership Interest
Tier Partnership Partnership General Partner
---------------- ----------- ---------------
Limited partnerships:

Cherry Hills Fund IX Limited Partnership (a) ............ 100% -
Forest Park Fund IX Associates Limited Partnership....... 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

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

Adoption of Recent Accounting Pronouncements
- --------------------------------------------

The Partnership has adopted Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 131,
"Disclosures About Segments of an Enterprise and Related Information ("SFAS
131"). SFAS 131 requires an enterprise to report financial information about its
reportable operating segments, which are defined as components of a business for
which separate financial information is evaluated regularly by the chief
decision maker in allocating resources and assessing performance. The
Partnership does not prepare such information for internal use, since it
analyzes the performance of and allocates resources for each property
individually. The Partnership's management has determined that it operates one
line of business and it would be impracticable to report segment information.
Therefore, the adoption of SFAS 131 has no impact on the Partnership's financial
statements.

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

Real estate investments are generally stated at the lower of depreciated cost or
fair value. Real estate investments are reviewed for impairment whenever events
or changes in circumstances indicate that their carrying amounts may not be
recoverable in accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No.
121, "Accounting for the Impairment of Long-Lived Assets and for Long-Lived
Assets to be Disposed Of". When the carrying value of a property exceeds the sum
of all estimated future cash flows, an impairment loss is recognized. At such
time, a write-down is recorded to reduce the basis of the property to its
estimated fair value.

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

Asset Held for Sale
- -------------------

The asset held for sale is stated at the lower of depreciated cost or fair value
less costs to sell. Depreciation ceased at the time the asset was placed on the
market for sale.

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.

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. See
Note 3 - "Taxable Income (Loss)."

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
Management Incentive Distribution ("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 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.

(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 1998, 1997 and 1996 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 MID; and

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

The Partnership paid distributions of $2,300,008 and $2,749,992 to the limited
partners in 1998 and 1997, respectively. No distributions were paid to the
limited partners in 1996. The Partnership paid or accrued distributions of
$1,164,510, $1,137,022 and $1,133,561 for the benefit of the General Partner for
the years ended December 31, 1998, 1997 and 1996, respectively. These
distributions are the MID pursuant to the Amended Partnership Agreement. The
General Partner has waived the collection terms of reimbursable expenses and
MID, and has elected for the Partnership to pay limited partner distributions
before the payment of such amounts. During the last week of March 1999, the
Partnership distributed approximately $749,000 to limited partners of record as
of March 1, 1999.

Net Income (Loss) Per Limited Partnership Unit
- ----------------------------------------------

Net income (loss) per limited partnership unit is computed by dividing net
income (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 1998, 1997 and 1996.

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.

Under terms of the Amended Partnership Agreement, the Partnership is paying a
MID to the General Partner. The maximum MID is calculated as 1% of the tangible
asset value of the Partnership. 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. The maximum MID percentage decreases to .75% in
2000, .50% in 2001 and .25% thereafter.

The MID will be paid to the extent of the lesser of the Partnership's excess
cash flow as defined, or net operating income, as defined (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 1998, 1997 and 1996,
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 that 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 MID earned. 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. The
amendment of the capitalization policy did not materially affect the MID for
1998, 1997 or 1996 because the Entitlement Amount was sufficient to pay the MID
notwithstanding the amendment to the capitalization policy.

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 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:

For the Years Ended December 31,
----------------------------------------------
1998 1997 1996
---------- ---------- ----------

Property management fees -

affiliates ............................. $1,022,893 $ 992,361 $ 978,168
Charged to general and
administrative - affiliates:
Partnership administration ............. 494,910 453,876 537,697
---------- ---------- ----------

$1,517,803 $1,446,237 $1,515,865
========== ========== ==========

Charged to General Partner's deficit:
Management Incentive Distribution ...... $1,164,510 $1,137,022 $1,133,561
========== ========== ==========

Payable to affiliates - General Partner at December 31, 1998, 1997 and 1996
consists of MID, reimbursable costs and property management fees which are due
and payable from current operations. The General Partner has waived the
collection terms of MID and reimbursable expenses, and has elected for the
Partnership to pay limited partner distributions before the payment of such
amounts.

NOTE 3 - TAXABLE INCOME (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 of $12,087,333 in
1998, $10,256,886 in 1997 and $9,965,434 in 1996.

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

The basis and accumulated depreciation of the Partnership's real estate
investments at December 31, 1998 and 1997 are set forth in the following tables:

Buildings and Accumulated Net Book
1998 Land Improvements Depreciation Value
---- -------------- --------------- ----------------- ---------------
Berkley Hills

Madison, TN $ 246,988 $ 6,311,660 $ (4,628,546) $ 1,930,102
Cherry Hills
Wichita, KS 514,205 9,237,103 (5,843,388) 3,907,920
Forest Park Village
Columbus, OH 716,395 9,708,790 (7,088,248) 3,336,937
Heather Square
Dallas, TX 853,746 7,667,049 (4,937,122) 3,583,673
Lantern Tree
Omaha, NE 217,809 3,497,514 (2,445,041) 1,270,282
Meridian West,
Puyallup, WA 253,167 5,044,312 (3,227,660) 2,069,819
Pennbrook
Dallas, TX 692,515 6,391,245 (4,218,187) 2,865,573
Rockborough
Addison, TX 427,932 3,993,552 (2,444,677) 1,976,807
Rolling Hills
Louisville, KY 557,249 9,232,101 (6,591,268) 3,198,082
Ruskin Place
Lincoln, NE 920,061 5,539,926 (3,794,395) 2,665,592
Westgate
Lansing, MI 390,482 6,483,030 (4,452,733) 2,420,779
Williamsburg,
Shreveport, LA 283,754 5,416,417 (3,675,977) 2,024,194
------------- ------------- ------------- -------------
$ 6,074,303 $ 78,522,699 $ (53,347,242) $ 31,249,760
============= ============= ============= =============

Buildings and Accumulated Net Book
1997 Land Improvements Depreciation Value
---- -------------- -------------- ---------------- ---------------

Berkley Hills $ 246,988 $ 6,220,925 $ (4,288,137) $ 2,179,776
Cherry Hills 514,205 9,077,853 (5,446,503) 4,145,555
Forest Park Village 716,395 9,476,403 (6,534,031) 3,658,767
Heather Square 853,746 7,532,362 (4,589,173) 3,796,935
Lantern Tree 217,809 3,419,718 (2,273,390) 1,364,137
Meridian West 253,167 4,935,765 (3,017,699) 2,171,233
Pennbrook 692,515 6,277,433 (3,923,455) 3,046,493
Rockborough 427,932 3,894,836 (2,251,909) 2,070,859
Rolling Hills 557,249 9,010,108 (6,062,834) 3,504,523
Ruskin Place 920,061 5,296,955 (3,508,282) 2,708,734
Westgate 390,482 6,341,774 (4,148,250) 2,584,006
Williamsburg 283,754 5,327,953 (3,423,289) 2,188,418
------------- ------------- ------------- -------------
$ 6,074,303 $ 76,812,085 $ (49,466,952) $ 33,419,436
============= ============= ============= =============

On August 1, 1997, the General Partner placed Sheraton Hills Apartments, located
in Nashville, Tennessee, on the market for sale. Accordingly, Sheraton Hills
Apartments is classified as an asset held for sale on the accompanying Balance
Sheets. The net book value of Sheraton Hills Apartments was $3,140,461 and
3,009,553 at December 31, 1998 and 1997, respectively.

The results of operations for Sheraton Hills Apartments are $557,955, $797,974
and $146,983 for 1998, 1997 and 1996, respectively. Results of operations are
operating revenues including gain on involuntary conversion, less operating
expenses including depreciation and interest expense.

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

The table below sets forth the mortgage notes payable of the Partnership at
December 31, 1998 and 1997. All mortgage notes are secured by real estate
investments.

Mortgage Annual Monthly
Lien Interest Payments/ December 31,
Property Position (a) Rates % Maturity Date (h) 1998 1997
- -------- ------------ ------- ----------------- --------------- --------------

Berkley Hills First 8.750 $26,005 12/23 $ 3,163,101 $ 3,196,776
------------- -------------

Cherry Hills (c) First 8.150 39,353 07/03 4,459,799 4,563,841
Discount (b) (73,545) (87,777)
------------- -------------
4,386,254 4,476,064
------------- -------------

Forest Park Village(d) First (d) (d) 03/01 5,925,000 -
First 9.125 59,732 - 5,861,401
------------- -------------
5,925,000 5,861,401
------------- -------------

Heather Square First 9.625 38,250 03/09 2,983,359 3,146,577
------------- -------------

Lantern Tree (c) First 8.150 20,416 07/03 2,313,727 2,367,704
Discount (b) (38,190) (45,580)
------------- -------------
2,275,537 2,322,124
------------- -------------

Meridian West (c) First 8.150 28,471 07/03 3,226,564 3,301,837
Discount (b) (53,257) (63,003)
------------- -------------
3,173,307 3,238,834
------------- -------------

Mortgage Annual Monthly
Lien Interest Payments/ December 31,
Property Position (a) Rates % Maturity Date (h) 1998 1997
- -------- ------------ ------- ----------------- --------------- -------------

Pennbrook (e) First 9.450 27,209 02/00 3,099,899 3,131,813
------------- -------------

Rockborough (c) First 8.150 18,789 07/03 2,129,352 2,179,027
Discount (b) (35,134) (41,934)
------------- -------------
2,094,218 2,137,093
------------- -------------

Rolling Hills (f) First (f) (f) 09/01 6,650,000 -
First 9.250 55,389 - 6,584,044
------------- -------------
6,650,000 6,584,044
------------- -------------

Ruskin Place First 8.750 36,348 10/24 4,460,660 4,504,429
------------- -------------

Sheraton Hills (g) First 6.900 17,844 11/01 2,702,620 2,747,663
------------- -------------

Westgate First 8.000 44,114 09/23 5,697,461 5,767,941
------------- -------------

Williamsburg (c) First 8.150 23,128 07/03 2,621,019 2,682,164
Discount (b) (43,247) (51,616)
------------- -------------
2,577,772 2,630,548
------------- -------------

Total $ 49,189,188 $ 49,745,307
============= =============

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

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

(c) Financing for the mortgage notes referenced above was obtained under the
terms of a Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit financing. The
referenced mortgage notes are cross-collateralized. Principal prepayments
made before July 2000 are subject to a Yield Maintenance Premium, as
defined. Additionally, the Partnership must pay a release payment equal to
25% of the prepaid balance that will be applied to the remaining referenced
mortgage notes.

(d) On March 20, 1998, the Partnership refinanced the Forest Park Village
mortgage note. The new mortgage note bears interest at a variable rate
equal to 1.75% plus the London Interbank Offered Rate ("LIBOR"). The
interest rate is adjusted every three months. Terms of the note require
monthly interest-only debt service payments, plus annual principal payments
equal to 5% of the outstanding principal balance. At December 31, 1998, the
interest rate of the mortgage note was 6.97%. See Note 7 - "Refinancing of
Mortgage Notes Payable."

(e) The Pennbrook mortgage note matures on February 1, 2000. The General
Partner is exploring financing alternatives to resolve the impending
maturity of the mortgage note.

(f) Effective August 31, 1998, the Partnership refinanced the Rolling Hills
mortgage note. The new mortgage note bears interest at a variable rate
equal to 1.75% plus the LIBOR. The interest rate is adjusted every three
months. Terms of the note require monthly interest-only debt service
payments, plus annual principal payments equal to 5% of the outstanding
principal balance. At December 31, 1998, the interest rate of the mortgage
note was 7.00%. See Note 7 - "Refinancing of Mortgage Notes Payable."

(g) Effective September 1, 1998, the Partnership and the Sheraton Hills
mortgage note holder modified and extended the Sheraton Hills mortgage
note. See Note 7 - "Refinancing of Mortgage Notes Payable."

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

Property Balloon Payment Date
-------- --------------- ----

Pennbrook............................... $ 3,059,000 02/00
Forest Park Village..................... 5,347,000 03/01
Rolling Hills........................... 6,002,000 09/01
Sheraton Hills.......................... 2,616,000 11/01
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

Scheduled principal maturities of the mortgage notes payable under existing
agreements, before consideration of discounts of $243,373, are shown below.

1999.................................... $ 1,406,054
2000.................................... 4,470,108
2001.................................... 14,839,224
2002.................................... 922,427
2003.................................... 13,545,503
Thereafter.............................. 14,249,245
----------
$49,432,561
==========

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 $49,923,000 and $52,907,000 at December 31, 1998
and 1997, respectively.

NOTE 6 - SALE OF REAL ESTATE
- ----------------------------

On July 30, 1996, the Partnership sold Westridge Apartments to an unaffiliated
purchaser for a purchase price of $2,110,500. The Partnership agreed to finance
a portion of the sales price by accepting a short-term, $1,550,000 purchase
money mortgage note. The mortgage note accrued interest at 10.0% per annum and
required monthly interest-only payments. On February 5, 1997, the purchaser
repaid the $1,550,000 mortgage note to the Partnership. Cash proceeds from the
sale, as well as the loss on sale of Westridge Apartments, are presented below.

Loss on Sale Cash Proceeds
---------------- ---------------

Cash sales price................................... $ 2,110,500 $ 2,110,500
Selling costs...................................... (68,116) (68,116)
Basis of real estate sold.......................... (2,262,541)
-------------

Loss on sale of real estate........................ $ (220,157)
==============

Net cash proceeds received in 1996................. (492,384)
-------------

Net cash proceeds received in 1997................. $ 1,550,000
=============

NOTE 7 - REFINANCING OF MORTGAGE NOTES PAYABLE
- ----------------------------------------------

On March 20, 1998, the Partnership refinanced the Forest Park Village mortgage
note. The new mortgage note, in the amount of $5,925,000, bears interest at a
variable rate equal to 1.75% plus the LIBOR per annum. The new mortgage note
requires monthly interest-only debt service payments and annual principal
payments equal to 5% of the outstanding principal balance of the note. Terms of
the new mortgage note require the Partnership to deposit funds into a restricted
cash account on a quarterly basis. The restricted funds will be used to pay the
annual principal payment and are included in "cash restricted for mortgage
payments" on the Balance Sheets. The new mortgage note matures on March 20,
2001. Proceeds from the refinancing of the Forest Park Village mortgage note are
as follows:

New mortgage note.................................. $ 5,925,000
Existing debt retired.............................. (5,830,964)
----------

Cash proceeds from refinancing..................... $ 94,036
==========

The Partnership incurred $82,148 of deferred borrowing costs in connection with
the refinancing of the Forest Park Village mortgage note.

On August 31, 1998, the Partnership refinanced the Rolling Hills mortgage note.
The new mortgage note, in the amount of $6,650,000, bears interest at a variable
rate equal to 1.75% plus the LIBOR per annum. The new mortgage note requires
monthly interest-only debt service payments and annual principal payments equal
to 5% of the outstanding principal balance of the note. Terms of the new
mortgage note require the Partnership to deposit funds into a restricted cash
account on a quarterly basis. The restricted funds will be used to pay the
annual principal payment and are included in "cash restricted for mortgage
payments" on the Balance Sheets. The new mortgage note matures on September 1,
2001. Proceeds from the refinancing of the Rolling Hills mortgage note are as
follows:

New mortgage note.................................. $ 6,650,000
Existing debt retired.............................. (6,545,929)
----------

Cash proceeds from refinancing..................... $ 104,071
==========

The Partnership incurred $77,366 of deferred borrowing costs in connection with
the refinancing of the Rolling Hills mortgage note.

In connection with the refinancing of the Rolling Hills mortgage note, the
Partnership wrote off the balance of unamortized deferred borrowing costs
associated with the prior mortgage note. The write-off, in the amount of
$405,235, is reported as the extraordinary item on the Partnership's Statement
of Operations for the year ended December 31, 1998.

On September 1, 1998, the Partnership and the holder of the Sheraton Hills
mortgage note agreed to modify the terms of the Sheraton Hills mortgage note.
The interest rate was changed from a variable rate to a 6.9% fixed rate. The
monthly debt service payments were changed from a variable amount to $17,844.
The maturity date of the mortgage note was extended to November 1, 2001. The
Partnership incurred $29,535 of deferred borrowing costs in connection with the
modification.

NOTE 8 - GAIN ON INVOLUNTARY CONVERSIONS
- ----------------------------------------

On April 24, 1996, a fire damaged 12 units at Sheraton Hills Apartments. The
cost to repair the fire damage was $562,560, of which, the Partnership received
$546,069 in insurance reimbursements. The Partnership recognized a $474,376 gain
on involuntary conversion equal to the insurance proceeds received less the
adjusted basis of the property damaged by the fire. The gain on involuntary
conversion was recognized in 1997 when the insurance proceeds were received.
Reconstruction of the damaged units was completed during the third quarter of
1996.

NOTE 9 - LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
- --------------------------

NOTE 10 - COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
- ---------------------------------------

Third parties also may seek recovery under the common law for damages to their
property or person, against owners of property from which there has been a
release of hazardous and other substances.

The presence of contamination or the failure to remediate contaminations may
adversely affect the owner's ability to sell or lease real estate or to borrow
using the real estate as collateral.

In connection with the proposed sale transaction as more fully described in Note
1 - "Organization and Summary of Significant Accounting Policies", Phase I
environmental site assessments have been completed for each property owned by
the Partnership. Such environmental assessments performed on the properties have
not revealed any environmental liability that the Partnership believes would
have a material adverse effect on the Partnership's business, assets, or results
of operations. The Partnership has not been notified by any governmental
authority of any non-compliance, liability or other claim in connection with any
of its properties. There can be no assurances, however, that environmental
liabilities have not developed since such environmental assessments were
prepared, or that future uses or conditions (including, without limitation,
changes in applicable environmental laws and regulations) will not result in
imposition of environmental liability.

McNEIL REAL ESTATE FUND IX, LTD.
SCHEDULE III
REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS AND ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION
December 31, 1998

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

Real Estate Investments:

Berkley Hills

Madison, TN $ 3,163,101 $ 246,988 $ 4,779,121 $ - $ 1,532,539

Cherry Hills
Wichita, KS 4,386,254 514,205 7,373,589 - 1,863,514

Forest Park Village
Columbus, OH 5,925,000 716,395 7,095,131 - 2,613,659

Heather Square
Dallas, TX 2,983,359 853,746 6,087,281 - 1,579,768

Lantern Tree
Omaha, NE 2,275,537 217,809 2,467,872 - 1,029,642

Meridian West
Puyallup, WA 3,173,307 253,167 3,787,807 - 1,256,505

Pennbrook
Dallas, TX 3,099,899 692,515 4,708,479 - 1,682,766

Rockborough
Addison, TX 2,094,218 427,932 2,924,451 - 1,069,101

Rolling Hills
Louisville, KY 6,650,000 557,249 6,156,595 - 3,075,506

Ruskin Place
Lincoln, NE 4,460,660 899,372 3,792,676 - 1,767,939

Westgate
Lansing, MI 5,697,461 390,482 4,963,710 - 1,519,320

Williamsburg
Shreveport, LA 2,577,772 283,754 4,203,172 - 1,213,245
-------------- -------------- -------------- ------------ -------------

$ 46,486,568 $ 6,053,614 $ 58,339,884 $ - $ 20,203,504
============== ============== ============== ============ =============

Asset Held for Sale (c):

Sheraton Hills
Nashville, TN $ 2,702,620
=============

See accompanying notes to Schedule III.

McNEIL REAL ESTATE FUND IX, LTD.
SCHEDULE III
REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS AND ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION
December 31, 1998

Gross Amount at
Which Carried at Close of Period Accumulated
Buildings and Depreciation
Description Land Improvements Total (a) and Amortization
- ----------- ---- ------------- --------- ----------------
APARTMENTS:

Real Estate Investments:

Berkley Hills

Madison, TX $ 246,988 $ 6,311,660 $ 6,558,648 $ (4,628,546)

Cherry Hills
Wichita, KS 514,205 9,237,103 9,751,308 (5,843,388)

Forest Park Village
Columbus, OH 716,395 9,708,790 10,425,185 (7,088,248)

Heather Square
Dallas, TX 853,746 7,667,049 8,520,795 (4,937,122)

Lantern Tree
Omaha, NE 217,809 3,497,514 3,715,323 (2,445,041)

Meridian West
Puyallup, WA 253,167 5,044,312 5,297,479 (3,227,660)

Pennbrook
Dallas, TX 692,515 6,391,245 7,083,760 (4,218,187)

Rockborough
Addison, TX 427,932 3,993,552 4,421,484 (2,444,677)

Rolling Hills
Louisville, KY 557,249 9,232,101 9,789,350 (6,591,268)

Ruskin Place
Lincoln, NE 920,061 5,539,926 6,459,987 (3,794,395)

Westgate
Lansing, MI 390,482 6,483,030 6,873,512 (4,452,733)

Williamsburg
Shreveport, LA 283,754 5,416,417 5,700,171 (3,675,977)
-------------- -------------- ---------------- -------------

$ 6,074,303 $ 78,522,699 $ 84,597,002 $ (53,347,242)
============== ============== ================ =============

Asset Held for Sale (c):

Sheraton Hills
Nashville, TN $ 3,140,461
================

See accompanying notes to Schedule III

McNEIL REAL ESTATE FUND IX, LTD.
SCHEDULE III
REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS AND ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION
December 31, 1998

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

Real Estate Investments:

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 3-32

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 3-31

Rolling Hills
Louisville, KY 1974 09/79 3-27

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

Westgate
Lansing, MI 1974 12/79 3-28

Williamsburg
Shreveport, LA 1975 12/79 3-28

Asset Held for Sale (c):

Sheraton Hills
Nashville, TN 1971 06/79

See accompanying notes to Schedule III.

McNEIL REAL ESTATE FUND IX, LTD.
SCHEDULE III
REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS AND ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION
December 31, 1998

(a) For Federal income tax purposes, the properties are depreciated over lives
ranging from 5-27.5 years using ACRS or MACRS methods. The aggregate cost
of real estate investments for Federal income tax purposes was $94,313,115
and accumulated depreciation was $57,699,982 at December 31, 1998.

(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.

(c) The asset held for sale is carried at the lower of depreciated cost or fair
value less costs to sell. Historical cost, net of accumulated depreciation
and cumulative write-downs, becomes the new cost basis when the asset is
classified as "Asset Held for Sale." Depreciation ceases at the time the
asset is placed on the market for sale.

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:

For the Years Ended December 31,
-----------------------------------------------------
1998 1997 1996
------------ ------------ ------------
Real estate investments:

Balance at beginning of year ................ $ 82,886,388 $ 88,037,151 $ 90,563,393

Improvements ................................ 1,710,614 2,064,414 2,398,428

Assets replaced ............................. -- -- (277,307)

Reclassification of asset held for salexxxxxx -- (7,215,177) --

Sale of real estate ......................... -- -- (4,647,363)
------------ ------------ ------------

Balance at end of year ...................... $ 84,597,002 $ 82,886,388 $ 88,037,151
============ ============ ============

Accumulated depreciation:

Balance at beginning of year ................ $ 49,466,952 $ 49,728,546 $ 48,129,231

Depreciation ................................ 3,880,290 3,944,030 4,173,260

Assets replaced ............................. -- -- (189,123)

Reclassification of asset held for sale ..... -- (4,205,624) --

Sale of real estate ......................... -- -- (2,384,822)
------------ ------------ ------------

Balance at end of year ...................... $ 53,347,242 $ 49,466,952 $ 49,728,546
============ ============ ============

Asset Held for Sale:

Balance at beginning of year ................ $ 3,009,553 $ -- $ --

Reclassification of asset held for sale ..... -- 3,009,553 --

Improvements ................................ 130,908 -- --
------------ ------------ ------------

Balance at end of year ...................... $ 3,140,461 $ 3,009,553 $ --
============ ============ ============

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:

Other Principal Occupations and Other
Name and Position Age Directorships During the Past 5 Years
- ----------------- --- -------------------------------------

Robert A. McNeil, 78 Mr. McNeil is also Chairman of the
Chairman of the Board and Director of McNeil Real Estate
Board and Director Management, Inc. ("McREMI") which is an
affiliate of the General 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 55 Mrs. McNeil is Co-Chairman, with husband
Co-Chairman of the Robert A. McNeil, of McNeil Investors,
Board Inc. Mrs. McNeil has twenty years of
real estate experience, 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.

Other Principal Occupations and Other
Name and Position Age Directorships During the Past 5 Years
- ----------------- --- -------------------------------------

Ron K. Taylor 41 Mr. Taylor is the President and Chief
President and Chief Executive Officer of McNeil Real Estate
Executive Officer Management which is an affiliate of the
General Partner. Mr. Taylor has been in
this capacity since the resignation of
Donald K. Reed on March 4, 1997. Prior
to assuming his current
responsibilities, Mr. Taylor served as a
Senior Vice President of McREMI. Mr.
Taylor has been in this capacity since
McREMI commenced operations in 1991.
Prior to joining McREMI, Mr. Taylor
served as an Executive Vice President
for a national syndication/property
management firm. In this capacity, Mr.
Taylor had the responsibility for the
management and leasing of a 21,000,000
square foot portfolio of commercial
properties. Mr. Taylor has been actively
involved in the real estate industry
since 1983.

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, 1998, 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, 1998. 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.

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 (5.8%) as of February 1, 1999.

2. High River Limited Partnership, 100 S. Bedford Road, Mount
Kisco, New York, 10549, owns 15,616 Units (14.2%) as of
February 1, 1999.

(B) Security ownership of management.

The General Partner and the officers and directors of its general
partner, collectively, own 5,715 Units (5.2%) as of February 1, 1999.

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. 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. The maximum MID percentage decreases to .75%
in 2000, .50% in 2001 and .25% thereafter.

The MID will be paid to the lesser of the Partnership's excess cash flow, as
defined, or net operating income (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, 1998, the Partnership paid
or accrued MID for the General Partner in the amount of $1,164,510.

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, 1998,
the Partnership incurred $1,517,803 of 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."

PART IV

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

See accompanying Index to Financial Statements at Item 8 - Financial Statements
and Supplementary Data.

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

Exhibits

Exhibit
Number Description
--------- -----------

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)

10.2 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)

Exhibit
Number Description
--------- -----------

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)

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, between Rolling Hills Fund IX
Associates, L.P. and McNeil Real Estate
Management, Inc. (2).

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exhibit
Number Description
------- -----------

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

10.28 Promissory Note, dated February 5, 1979,
between Summers-The Heather Apartments Company
and The Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Company.
(6)

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

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

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

10.32 Promissory Note, dated March 20, 1998,
between Forest Park Fund IX Associates Limited
Partnership and NationsBank of Texas, N.A.

10.33 Promissory Note, dated August 31, 1998,
between Rolling Hills Fund IX Associates, L.P.
and NationsBank, N.A.

11. Statement regarding computation of net income
(loss) per limited partnership unit (see Item
8 - 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 PartnershipDelaware None

Meridian West Fund IX
Limited PartnershipDelaware None

Pennbrook Fund IX
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

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, 1994, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 30, 1995.

27. Financial Data Schedule for the year ended December 31, 1998.

(B) Reports on Form 8-K. There were no reports on Form 8-K filed during the
quarter ended December 31, 1998.

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.

McNEIL REAL ESTATE FUND IX, LTD.

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

By: McNeil Investors, Inc., General Partner

March 31, 1999 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 31, 1999 By: /s/ Ron K. Taylor
- -------------- ---------------------------------------
Date Ron K. Taylor
President and Director of McNeil
Investors, Inc.
(Principal Financial Officer)

March 31, 1999 By: /s/ Brandon K. Flaming
- -------------- ---------------------------------------
Date Brandon K. Flaming
Vice President of McNeil
Investors, Inc.
(Principal Accounting Officer)