POLARIS AIRCRAFT INCOME FUND VI, 10-K, 1997-03-31

POLARIS AIRCRAFT INCOME FUND VI
10-K, 1997-03-31
EQUIPMENT RENTAL & LEASING, NEC

Previous: HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROPERTIES 1990 LP TAX CREDIT FUND, 10-K, 1997-03-31

Next: EDISTO RESOURCES CORP, 10-K, 1997-03-31

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549
---------------------------

FORM 10-K
---------------------------

_X_ ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 (Fee Required)
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 1996

___ TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 (No Fee Required)
For the transition period from ___ to ___

Commission File No. 33-31810

POLARIS AIRCRAFT INCOME FUND VI,
A California Limited Partnership
-----------------------------------------------------
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

California 94-3102632
------------------------------- ----------------------
(State or other jurisdiction of (IRS Employer I.D. No.)
incorporation or organization)

201 Mission Street,27th Floor,San Francisco, California 94105
------------------------------------------------------- ---------
(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)

Registrant's telephone number, including area code: (415) 284-7400

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

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
Depository Units Representing Assignments of Limited Partnership Interests

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has filed all reports
required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the
registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such
filing requirements for the past 90 days. 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. ___

No formal market exists for the units of limited partnership interest and
therefore there exists no aggregate market value at December 31, 1996.

Documents incorporated by reference: None

This document consists of 42 pages.

<PAGE>

PART I

Item 1. Business

The principal objectives of Polaris Aircraft Income Fund VI, A California
Limited Partnership (PAIF-VI or the Partnership), are to purchase and lease used
commercial jet aircraft in order to provide quarterly distributions of cash from
operations, to maximize the residual values of aircraft upon sale and to protect
Partnership capital through experienced management. PAIF-VI was organized as a
California Limited Partnership on October 13, 1989 and will terminate no later
than December 2020.

PAIF-VI has many competitors in the aircraft leasing market, including airlines,
aircraft leasing companies, other limited partnerships, banks and several other
types of financial institutions. This market is highly competitive and there is
no single competitor who has a significant influence on the industry. In
addition to other competitors, the general partner, Polaris Investment
Management Corporation (PIMC), and its affiliates, including GE Capital Aviation
Services, Inc. (GECAS), Polaris Aircraft Leasing Corporation (PALC), Polaris
Holding Company (PHC) and General Electric Capital Corporation (GE Capital),
acquire, lease, finance, sell and remarket aircraft for their own accounts and
for existing aircraft and aircraft leasing programs managed by them. Further,
GECAS provides a significant range of management services to GPA Group plc, a
public limited company organized in Ireland, together with its consolidated
subsidiaries (GPA), which acquires, leases and sells aircraft. Accordingly, in
seeking to re-lease and sell its aircraft, the Partnership may be in competition
with the general partner, its affiliates, and GPA.

A brief description of the aircraft owned by the Partnership is set forth in
Item 2. The following table describes certain material terms of the
Partnership's leases to American Trans Air, Inc. (ATA) and British Airways Plc
(British Airways) as of December 31, 1996:

Number of Lease
Lessee Aircraft Type Aircraft Expiration Renewal Options(1)
- ------ ------------- -------- ---------- -------------------

ATA Boeing 727-200 Advanced 1 3/00 (2) up to three one
year periods
British
Airways Boeing 737-200 Advanced 1 3/98 (3) None

(1) The rental rate during the renewal term remains the same as the
current rate unless otherwise noted.

(2) This aircraft was formerly leased to USAir, Inc. (USAir) until
December 1992. The lease rate is approximately 47% of the prior rate.
The lease includes an eleven-month rent suspension period beginning
on the delivery date in March 1993. Under the ATA lease, the
Partnership incurred certain maintenance costs of approximately
$537,000 and may be required to finance an aircraft hushkit at a cost
of approximately $2.6 million, which would be partially recovered
with interest through payments from ATA over an extended lease term.
As part of the lease transaction, ATA transferred to the Partnership
one unencumbered Boeing 727-100 aircraft in April 1993 which was
subject to a conditional sale agreement as discussed in Note 4 to the
financial statements (Item 8).

<PAGE>

(3) This aircraft was originally leased to British Airways until April
1995. The Partnership has negotiated a lease extension with British
Airways for three years until March 1998 at a fair market rental
rate, which is approximately 40% of the prior rate.

Industry-wide, approximately 280 commercial jet aircraft were available for sale
or lease at December 31, 1996, approximately 195 less than a year ago, and at
under 2.5% of the total available jet aircraft fleet, this is the lowest level
of availability since 1988. From 1991 to 1994, depressed demand for travel
limited airline expansion plans, with new aircraft orders and scheduled
deliveries being canceled or substantially deferred. As profitability declined,
many airlines took action to downsize or liquidate assets and some airlines were
forced to file for bankruptcy protection. Following three years of good traffic
growth accompanied by rising yields, this trend is reversing with many airlines
reporting record profits. As a result of this improving trend, just over 1200
new jet aircraft were ordered in 1996, making this the second highest ever order
year in the history of the industry. To date, this strong recovery has mainly
benefited Stage 3 narrow-bodies and younger Stage 2 narrow-bodies, many of which
are now being upgraded with hushkits, which, when installed on the aircraft,
bring Stage 2 aircraft into compliance with Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) Stage 3 noise restrictions as discussed in the Industry Update section of
Item 7. Older Stage 2 narrow-bodies have shown only marginal signs of recovery
since the depressed 1991 to 1994 period. In 1996, several airline accidents have
also impacted the market for older Stage 2 aircraft. The Partnership has been
forced to adjust its estimates of the residual values realizable from its
aircraft, which resulted in an increase in depreciation expense, as discussed in
Items 7 and 8. A discussion of the current market condition for the type of
aircraft owned by the Partnership follows:

Boeing 727-100 - The Boeing 727 was the first tri-jet introduced into commercial
service. The Boeing 727-100 is a short- to medium-range jet carrying
approximately 125 passengers on trips of up to 1,500 miles. The operating
characteristics of the aircraft, as well as the cost of aging aircraft and
corrosion control Airworthiness Directives (ADs), have significantly reduced the
possibility of re-leasing this type of aircraft.

Boeing 727-200 Advanced - The Boeing 727 was the first tri-jet introduced into
commercial service. The Boeing 727 is a short- to medium-range jet used for
trips of up to 1,500 nautical miles. In 1972, Boeing introduced the Boeing
727-200 Advanced model, a higher gross weight version with increased fuel
capacity as compared with the non-advanced model. Hushkits which bring the
Boeing 727-200 Advanced into compliance with FAA Stage 3 noise restrictions, are
now available at an average cost of approximately $2.6 million per aircraft.
Hushkits may not be cost effective on all aircraft due to the age of some of the
aircraft and the time required to fully amortize the additional investment.
Certain ADs applicable to all models of the Boeing 727 have been issued to
prevent fatigue cracks and control corrosion as discussed in Item 7.

Boeing 737-200 Advanced - In 1971, Boeing introduced the Boeing 737-200 Advanced
model, a higher gross weight aircraft with increased fuel capacity as compared
to its predecessor, the non-advanced model. This two-engine, two-pilot aircraft
provides operators with 107 to 130 seats, meeting their requirements for
economical lift up to the 2,000 nautical mile range. Hushkits which bring Boeing
737-200 aircraft into compliance with FAA Stage 3 noise restrictions, are now
available at a cost of approximately $1.5 million per aircraft. Hushkits may not
be cost effective on all aircraft due to the age of some of the aircraft and the
time required to fully amortize the additional investment. Certain ADs
applicable to all models of the Boeing 737 have been issued to prevent fatigue
cracks and control corrosion as discussed in Item 7.

The general partner believes that, in addition to the factors cited above, the
deteriorated market for the Partnership's aircraft reflects the airline
industry's reaction to the significant expenditures potentially necessary to
bring these aircraft into compliance with certain ADs issued by the FAA relating
to aging aircraft, corrosion prevention and control, and structural inspection
and modification as discussed in the Industry Update section of Item 7.

<PAGE>

Item 2. Properties

At December 31, 1996, PAIF-VI owned one Boeing 737-200 Advanced aircraft leased
to British Airways and one Boeing 727-200 Advanced aircraft leased to ATA. One
Boeing 727-100 aircraft, transferred from ATA in 1993, is subject to a
conditional sale agreement to Empresa de Transporte Aereo del Peru S.A.
(Aeroperu) financed by the Partnership. The final payment was received in July
1996 and title to the aircraft is expected to be transferred to Aeroperu or its
assignee in 1997. The Partnership's aircraft are Stage 2 aircraft and the leases
are operating leases.

The following table describes the Partnership's aircraft portfolio in greater
detail:

Year of Cycles
Aircraft Type Serial Number Manufacture As of 10/31/96 (1)
- ------------- ------------- ----------- ------------------
Boeing 727-200 Advanced 21996 1980 25,561
Boeing 737-200 Advanced 22026 1980 23,000

(1) Cycle information as of 12/31/96 was not available.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

Kepford, et al. v. Prudential Securities, et al. - On April 13, 1994, an action
entitled Kepford, et al. v. Prudential Securities, Inc. was filed in the
District Court of Harris County, Texas. The complaint names Polaris Investment
Management Corporation, Polaris Securities Corporation, Polaris Holding Company,
Polaris Aircraft Leasing Corporation, the Partnership, Polaris Aircraft Income
Fund I, Polaris Aircraft Income Fund II, Polaris Aircraft Income Fund III,
Polaris Aircraft Income Fund IV, Polaris Aircraft Income Fund V, General
Electric Capital Corporation, Prudential Securities, Inc., Prudential Insurance
Company of America and James J. Darr, as defendants. Certain defendants were
served with a summons and original petition on or about May 2, 1994. Plaintiffs'
original petition alleges that defendants violated the Texas Securities Act, the
Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of
1933 and committed common law fraud, fraud in the inducement, negligent
misrepresentation, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and civil conspiracy by
misrepresenting and failing to disclose material facts in connection with the
sale of limited partnership units in the Partnership and the other Polaris
Aircraft Income Funds. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, an award of
compensatory damages in an unspecified amount plus interest thereon, and double
and treble damages under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Certain defendants, including Polaris Investment Management Corporation and the
Partnership, filed a general denial on June 29, 1994 and a motion for summary
judgment on June 17, 1994 on the basis that the statute of limitations has
expired. On June 29, 1994 and July 14, 1994, respectively, plaintiffs filed
their first amended original petition and second amended original petition, both
of which added plaintiffs. On July 18, 1994, plaintiffs filed their response and
opposition to defendants' motion for partial summary judgment and also moved for
a continuance on the motion for partial summary judgment. On August 11, 1994,
after plaintiffs again amended their petition to add numerous plaintiffs, the
defendants withdrew their summary judgment motion and motion to stay discovery,
without prejudice to refiling these motions at a later date. On January 9, 1997,
the trial court issued a scheduling order setting a July 21, 1997 trial date.

Riskind, et al. v. Prudential Securities, Inc., et al. - An action entitled
Riskind, et al. v. Prudential Securities, Inc., et al. has been filed in the
District Court of the 165 Judicial District, Maverick County, Texas. This action
is on behalf of over 3,000 individual investors who purchased units in "various
Polaris Aircraft Income Funds," including the Partnership. The Partnership and
Polaris Investment Management

<PAGE>

Corporation received service of plaintiffs' second amended original petition
and, on June 13, 1994, filed an original answer containing a general denial.

The second amended original petition names the Partnership, Polaris Investment
Management Corporation, Prudential Securities, Inc. and others as defendants and
alleges that these defendants violated the Texas Securities Act and the Texas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act and committed common law fraud, fraud in the
inducement, negligent misrepresentation, negligent breach of fiduciary duty and
civil conspiracy by misrepresenting and failing to disclose material facts in
connection with the sale of limited partnership units in the Partnership and the
other Polaris Aircraft Income Funds. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, an
award of compensatory damages in an unspecified amount plus interest thereon,
and double and treble damages under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
Kidder, Peabody & Co. was added as an additional defendant by virtue of an
Intervenor's Amended Plea in Intervention filed on or about April 7, 1995.

Prudential Securities, Inc. reached a settlement with the plaintiffs. The trial
of the claims of one plaintiff, Robert W. Wilson, against Polaris Aircraft
Income Funds I-VI, Polaris Investment Management Corporation and various
affiliates of Polaris Investment Management Corporation, including General
Electric Capital Corporation, was commenced on July 10, 1995. On July 26, 1995,
the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants on all counts. Subsequent
to this verdict, all of the defendants (with the exception of Prudential
Securities, Inc., which had previously settled) entered into a settlement with
the plaintiffs. On February 26, 1997, the court issued an order notifying the
remaining plaintiffs, who did not accept the settlement with the non-Prudential
defendants, that the action would be dismissed on April 21, 1997 for want of
prosecution unless the plaintiffs showed cause why the action should not be
dismissed.

Howland, et al. v. Polaris Holding Company, et al. - On or about February 4,
1994, a purported class action entitled Howland, et al. v. Polaris Holding
Company, et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the District
of Arizona on behalf of investors in Polaris Aircraft Income Funds I-VI. The
complaint names each of Polaris Investment Management Corporation, Polaris
Securities Corporation, Polaris Holding Company, Polaris Aircraft Leasing
Corporation, the Partnership, Polaris Aircraft Income Fund I, Polaris Aircraft
Income Fund II, Polaris Aircraft Income Fund III, Polaris Aircraft Income Fund
IV, Polaris Aircraft Income Fund V, General Electric Capital Corporation,
Prudential Securities, Inc., Prudential Securities Group, Inc., Prudential
Insurance Company of America, George W. Ball, Robert J. Sherman, James J. Darr,
Paul J. Proscia, Frank W. Giordano, William A. Pittman, Joseph H. Quinn, Joe W.
Defur, James M. Kelso and Brian J. Martin, as defendants. The complaint alleges
that defendants violated federal RICO statutes, committed negligent
misrepresentations, and breached their fiduciary duties by misrepresenting and
failing to disclose material facts in connection with the sale of limited
partnership units in the Partnership and the other Polaris Aircraft Income
Funds. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, an accounting of all monies invested
by plaintiffs and the class and the uses made thereof by defendants, an award of
compensatory, punitive and treble damages in unspecified amounts plus interest
thereon, rescission, attorneys' fees and costs. On August 3, 1994, the action
was transferred to the multi-district litigation in the Southern District of New
York entitled In re Prudential Securities Limited Partnerships Litigation,
discussed in Part III, Item 10 below.

Mary C. Scott v. Prudential Securities Inc. et al. - On or around August 15,
1995, a complaint entitled Mary C. Scott v. Prudential Securities Inc. et al.
was filed in the Court of Common Pleas, County of Summit, Ohio. The complaint
names as defendants Prudential Securities Inc., the Partnership, Polaris
Aircraft Income Fund II, Polaris Aircraft Income Fund III, Polaris Aircraft
Income Fund IV, P-Bache/A.G. Spanos Genesis Income Partners LP 1,
Prudential-Bache Properties, Inc., A.G. Spanos Residential Partners - 86,
Polaris Securities Corporation and Robert Bryan Fitzpatrick. Plaintiff alleges
claims of fraud and violation of Ohio securities law arising out of the public
offerings of the Partnership, Polaris Aircraft Income Fund II, Polaris Aircraft
Income Fund III, Polaris Aircraft Income Fund IV, and P-Bache/A.G. Spanos
Genesis Income Partners LP 1. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, general,
consequential and incidental

<PAGE>

damages, punitive damages, rescission, costs, attorneys' fees and other and
further relief as the Court deems just and proper. On September 15, 1995,
defendants removed this action to the United States District Court, Eastern
District of Ohio. On September 18, 1995, defendants sought the transfer of this
action to the Multi-District Litigation and sought a stay of all proceedings by
the district court, which stay was granted on September 25, 1995. The Judicial
Panel transferred this action to the Multi-District Litigation on or about
February 7, 1996.

Other Proceedings - Part III, Item 10 discusses certain other actions which have
been filed against the general partner in connection with certain public
offerings, including that of the Partnership. With the exception of Novak, et al
v. Polaris Holding Company, et al, (which has been dismissed, as discussed in
Item 10) where the Partnership was named as a defendant for procedural purposes,
the Partnership is not a party to these actions.

Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders

None.

<PAGE>

PART II

Item 5. Market for the Registrant's Common Equity and Related Stockholder
Matters

a) Polaris Aircraft Income Fund VI's (PAIF-VI or the Partnership) units
representing assignments of limited partnership interest (Units) are
not publicly traded. The Units are held by Polaris Depositary VI on
behalf of the Partnership's investors (Unit Holders). There is no
formal market for PAIF-VI's Units and it is unlikely that any market
will develop.

b) Number of Security Holders:

Number of Record Holders
Title of Class as of December 31, 1996
----------------------------------- ---------------------------

Depository Units Representing Assignments
of Limited Partnership Interest: 2,207

General Partnership Interest: 1

c) Dividends:

Distributions of cash from operations commenced on a quarterly basis
beginning January 1991. Cash distributions to Unit Holders during 1996
and 1995 totaled $1,735,449 and $1,995,768, respectively. Cash
distributions per limited partnership unit were $25.00 and $28.75 in
1996 and 1995, respectively.

<PAGE>
<TABLE>
Item 6. Selected Financial Data

<CAPTION>
For the years ended December 31,
--------------------------------

1996 1995 1994 1993 1992
---- ---- ---- ---- ----
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C>
Revenues $ 2,092,094 $ 2,518,490 $ 3,449,608 $ 3,151,370 $ 4,382,370

Net Income (Loss) (8,004,748) (1,527,077) (585,002) (13,184) 2,613,379

Net Income (Loss)
Allocated to Limited
Partners (8,096,088) (1,632,117) (694,609) (129,661) 2,189,158

Net Income (Loss) per
Limited Partnership Unit (116.63) (23.51) (10.01) (1.87) 31.54

Cash Distributions per
Limited Partnership
Unit 25.00 28.75 30.00 31.88 55.00

Amount of Cash
Distributions Included
Above Representing
a Return of Capital on
a Generally Accepted
Accounting Principle
Basis per Limited
Partnership Unit* 25.00 28.75 30.00 31.88 20.00

Total Assets 9,951,825 19,813,927 23,431,897 26,193,322 28,545,007

Partners' Capital 9,827,231 19,658,768 23,286,653 26,063,802 28,406,508

</TABLE>

* The portion of such distributions which represents a return of capital on an
economic basis will depend in part on the residual sale value of the
Partnership's aircraft and thus will not be ultimately determinable until the
Partnership disposes of its aircraft. However, such portion may be significant
and may equal, exceed or be smaller than the amount shown in the above table.

<PAGE>

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

At December 31, 1996, Polaris Aircraft Income Fund VI (the Partnership) owned
one Boeing 737-200 Advanced aircraft leased to British Airways Plc (British
Airways) and one Boeing 727-200 Advanced aircraft leased to American Trans Air,
Inc. (ATA). In addition, the Partnership sold one Boeing 727-100 aircraft that
ATA transferred to the Partnership as part of the ATA lease transaction in April
1993, subject to a conditional sale agreement to Empresa de Transporte Aereo del
Peru S.A. (Aeroperu) financed by the Partnership. The final payment was received
in July 1996 and title to the aircraft is expected to be transferred to Aeroperu
or its assignee in 1997.

Remarketing Update

Proposed Sale of Aircraft - The Partnership has received, and the General
Partner (upon recommendation of its servicer) has determined that it would be in
the best interests of the Partnership to accept an offer to purchase all of the
Partnership's aircraft (the "Aircraft") by a special purpose company (the
"Purchaser"). The Purchaser is managed by Triton Aviation Services, Ltd., a
privately held aircraft leasing company (the "Purchaser's Manager") which was
formed in 1996. Each Aircraft is to be sold subject to the existing leases, and
as part of the transaction the Purchaser assumes all obligations relating to
maintenance reserves and security deposits, if any, relating to such leases. At
the same time cash balances related to maintenance reserves and security
deposits, if any, will be transferred to the Purchaser.

The total proposed purchase price (the "Purchase Price") to be paid by the
Purchaser in the contemplated transaction would be $6,112,000 all of which would
be allocable to the Aircraft. The Purchaser proposes to pay $688,578 of the
Purchase Price in cash at the closing and the balance of $5,423,422 would be
paid by delivery of a promissory note ( the "Promissory Note") by the Purchaser.
The Promissory Note would be repaid in equal quarterly installments over a
period of seven years bearing interest at a rate of 12% per annum with a balloon
principal payment at the end of year seven. The Purchaser would have the right
to voluntarily prepay the Promissory Note in whole or in part at any time
without penalty. In addition, the Promissory Note would be subject to mandatory
partial prepayment in certain specified instances.

Under the terms of the contemplated transaction, the Aircraft, including any
income or proceeds therefrom and any reserves or deposits with respect thereto,
constitute the sole source of payments under the Promissory Note. No security
interest over the Aircraft or the leases would be granted in favor of the
Partnership, but the equity interests in the Purchaser would be pledged to the
Partnership. The Purchaser would have the right to sell the Aircraft, or any of
them, without the consent of the Partnership, except that the Partnership's
consent would be required in the event that the proposed sale price is less than
the portion of the outstanding balance of the Promissory Note which is allocable
to the Aircraft in question and the Purchaser does not have sufficient funds to
make up the difference. The Purchaser would undertake to keep the Aircraft and
leases free of any lien, security interest or other encumbrance other than (i)
inchoate materialmen's liens and the like, and (ii) in the event that the
Purchaser elects to install hushkits on any Aircraft, secured debt to the extent
of the full cost of such hushkit. The Purchaser will be prohibited from
incurring indebtedness other than (i) the Promissory Note; (ii) deferred taxes
not yet due and payable; (iii) indebtedness incurred to hushkit Aircraft owned
by the Purchaser and, (iv) demand loans from another SPC (defined below) at a
market rate of interest.

<PAGE>

Under the terms of the contemplated transaction, Purchaser's Manager would
undertake to make available a working capital line to the Purchaser of up to
approximately $534,000 to fund operating obligations of the Purchaser. This
working capital line is to be guaranteed by Triton Investments, Ltd., the parent
of the Purchaser's Manager and such guarantor will provide the Partnership with
a copy of its most recent balance sheet showing a consolidated net worth (net of
minority interests) of at least $150-million. Furthermore, each of the SPC's,
including the Purchaser, is to enter into a management agreement with
Purchaser's Manager pursuant to which Purchaser's Manager would provide all
normal and customary management services including remarketing, sales and
repossession, if necessary. Provided that the Purchaser is not in default in
making payments due under the Promissory Note to the Partnership, the Purchaser
would be permitted to dividend to its equity owners an amount not to exceed
approximately $14,300 per month. The Purchaser may distribute additional
dividends to the equity owners to the extent of the working capital advances
made by the Purchaser's Manager provided that the working capital line available
to the Purchaser will be deemed increased to the extent of any such dividends.

The Purchaser would be deemed to have purchased the Aircraft effective as of
April 1, 1997 notwithstanding the actual closing date. The Purchaser would have
the right to receive all income and proceeds, including rents and notes
receivables, from the Aircraft accruing from and after April 1, 1997, and the
Promissory Note would commence bearing interest as of April 1, 1997.

The Partnership has agreed to consult with Purchaser's Manager before taking any
significant action pertaining to the Aircraft after the effective date of the
purchase offer. The Purchaser also has the right to make all significant
decisions regarding the Aircraft from and after the date of completion of
definitive documentation legally binding the Purchaser and the Partnership to
the transaction, even if a delay occurs between the completion of such
documentation and the closing of the title transfer to the Purchaser.

In the event the Partnership receives and elects to accept an offer for all (but
not less than all) of the assets to be sold by it to the Purchaser on terms
which it deems more favorable, the Purchaser has the right to (i) match the
offer, or (ii) decline to match the offer and be entitled to compensation in an
amount equal to 1 1/2% of the Purchaser's proposed Purchase Price.

It should be noted that there can be no assurance that the contemplated sale
transaction will be consummated. The contemplated transaction remains subject to
execution of definitive documentation and various other contingencies.

Partnership Operations

The Partnership recorded net losses of $8,004,748, $1,527,077, and $585,002, or
$116.63, $23.51 and $10.01 per limited partnership unit for the years ended
December 31, 1996, 1995 and 1994, respectively. The 1996 operating results
reflect lower rental revenues and substantially higher depreciation expenses as
compared to 1995. The 1995 operating results reflect substantially lower rental
revenues as compared to 1994.

Operating results in 1996, 1995 and 1994 were significantly impacted by
increases in depreciation expense for certain of the Partnership's aircraft. As
discussed in the Industry Update section, if the projected net cash flow for
each aircraft (projected rental revenue, net of management fees, less projected
maintenance costs, if any, plus the estimated residual value) is less than the
carrying value of the aircraft, the Partnership recognizes the deficiency
currently as increased depreciation expense.

The Partnership recognized impairments on aircraft to be held and used by the
Partnership of approximately $8,254,000, $2,031,000 and $2,160,000 in 1996, 1995
and 1994, respectively. In 1996, the impairment loss was the result of several

<PAGE>

significant factors. As a result of industry and market changes, a more
extensive review of the Partnership's aircraft was completed in the fourth
quarter of 1996 which resulted in revised assumptions of future cash flows
including reassessment of projected re-lease terms and potential future
maintenance costs. As discussed in Note 8, the Partnership accepted an offer to
purchase both of the Partnership's remaining aircraft subject to each aircraft's
existing lease. This offer constitutes an event that required the Partnership to
review the aircraft carrying value pursuant to SFAS 121. In determining this
additional impairment loss, the Partnership estimated the fair value of the
aircraft based on the purchase price reflected in the offer, less the estimated
costs and expenses of the proposed sale. The Partnership is deemed to have an
impairment loss to the extent that the carrying value exceeded the fair value.
Management believes the assumptions related to fair value of impaired assets
represents the best estimates based on reasonable and supportable assumptions
and projections. It should be noted that there can be no assurance that the
contemplated sale transaction will be consummated. The contemplated transaction
remains subject to execution of definitive documentation and various other
contingencies.

The increased depreciation expense reduces the aircraft's carrying value and
reduces the amount of future depreciation expense that the Partnership will
recognize over the projected remaining economic life of the aircraft. The
Partnership also made downward adjustments to the estimated residual value of
certain of its aircraft as of December 31, 1995 and 1994. For any downward
adjustment to the estimated residual values, depreciation expense over the
projected remaining economic life of the aircraft is increased. The
Partnership's earnings are impacted by the net effect of the adjustments to the
aircraft carrying values recorded in 1996, 1995 and 1994 and the downward
adjustments to the estimated residual values recorded in 1995 and 1994 as
discussed later in the Industry Update section.

Operating results in 1996 and 1995 were negatively impacted by the reduction in
the rental rate earned on the lease extension with British Airways as previously
discussed. The lease extension is effective from April 1995 until March 1998 at
the current fair market rental rate, which is approximately 40% of the prior
rate.

Liquidity and Cash Distributions

Liquidity - The Partnership continues to receive all lease payments on a current
basis. The Partnership's cash reserves have been negatively impacted by the
reduction in rental payments received from British Air following the three year
lease extension in April 1995 as discussed above.

The ATA lease specifies that the Partnership may be required to finance an
aircraft hushkit at an estimated cost of approximately $2.6 million, which would
be partially recovered with interest through payments from ATA over an extended
lease term. The Partnership's cash reserves are being retained to finance a
portion of the cost that may be incurred under the lease with ATA and to cover
other potential cash requirements.

Cash Distributions - Cash distributions to limited partners during 1996, 1995
and 1994 were $1,735,449, $1,995,768 and $2,082,540, respectively. Cash
distributions per limited partnership unit were $25.00, $28.75 and $30.00 during
1996, 1995 and 1994, respectively. The timing and amount of future cash
distributions will depend upon the Partnership's future cash requirements, and
the receipt of rental payments from British Airways and ATA.

Industry Update

Maintenance of Aging Aircraft - The process of aircraft maintenance begins at
the aircraft design stage. For aircraft operating under Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) regulations, a review board consisting of representatives
of the manufacturer, FAA representatives and operating airline representatives
is responsible for specifying the aircraft's initial maintenance program. The
general partner understands that this program is constantly reviewed and
modified throughout the aircraft's operational life.

<PAGE>

Since 1988, the FAA, working with the aircraft manufacturers and operators, has
issued a series of Airworthiness Directives (ADs) which mandate that operators
conduct more intensive inspections, primarily of the aircraft fuselages. The
results of these mandatory inspections may result in the need for repairs or
structural modifications that may not have been required under pre-existing
maintenance programs.

In addition, an AD adopted in 1990 requires replacement or modification of
certain structural items on a specific timetable. These structural items were
formerly subject to periodic inspection, with replacement when necessary. The
FAA estimates the cost of compliance with this AD to be approximately $1.0
million and $900,000 per Boeing 727 and Boeing 737 aircraft, respectively, if
none of the required work had been done previously. The FAA also issued several
ADs in 1993 updating inspection and modification requirements for Boeing 737
aircraft. The FAA estimates the cost of these requirements to be approximately
$90,000 per aircraft. In general, the new maintenance requirements must be
completed by the later of March 31, 1994, or 75,000 and 60,000 cycles for each
Boeing 737 and 727, respectively. The extent of modifications required to an
aircraft varies according to the level of incorporation of design improvements
at manufacture.

In December 1990, the FAA adopted another AD intended to mitigate corrosion of
structural components, which would require repeated inspections from 5 years of
age throughout the life of an aircraft, with replacement of corroded components
as needed. Integration of the new inspections into each aircraft operator's
maintenance program was required by December 31, 1991 on Boeing aircraft.

In 1996, the manufacturer proposed certain Boeing 737 rudder system product
improvements of which some will be mandated by the FAA. Airworthiness Directives
issued in the last quarter of 1996 and the first quarter of 1997 on this subject
have not been of significant maintenance cost impact. The cost of compliance
with future FAA maintenance requirements not yet issued is not determinable at
this time.

The Partnership's existing lease to ATA requires the lessee to maintain the
Partnership's aircraft in accordance with an FAA-approved maintenance program
during the lease term. The Partnership's lease to British Airways, which
operates in Great Britain, requires the lessee to maintain the Partnership's
aircraft in accordance with Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) requirements during
the lease term. At the end of the leases, each lessee is generally required to
return the aircraft in airworthy condition including compliance with all ADs for
which action is mandated by the FAA or CAA, whichever is applicable, during the
lease term. An aircraft returned to the Partnership as a result of a lease
default would most likely not be returned to the Partnership in compliance with
all return conditions required by the lease. In negotiating subsequent leases,
market conditions may require that the Partnership bear some or all of the costs
of compliance with future ADs or ADs that have been issued, but which did not
require action during the previous lease term. The ultimate effect on the
Partnership of compliance with the FAA maintenance standards is not determinable
at this time and will depend on a variety of factors, including the state of the
commercial aircraft industry, the timing of the issuance of ADs, and the status
of compliance therewith at the expiration of the current leases.

Aircraft Noise - Another issue which has affected the airline industry is that
of aircraft noise levels. The FAA has categorized aircraft according to their
noise levels. Stage 1 aircraft, which have the highest noise level, are no
longer allowed to operate from civil airports in the United States. Stage 2
aircraft meet current FAA requirements, subject to the phase-out rules discussed
below. Stage 3 aircraft are the most quiet and Stage 3 is the standard for all
new aircraft.

On September 24, 1991, the FAA issued final rules on the phase-out of Stage 2
aircraft by the end of this decade. The key features of the rule include:

- Compliance can be accomplished through a gradual process of phase-
in or phase-out (see below) on each of three interim compliance
dates: December 31, 1994, 1996 and 1998. All

<PAGE>

Stage 2 aircraft must be phased out of operations in the
contiguous United States by December 31, 1999, with waivers
available in certain specific cases to December 31, 2003.

- All operators have the option of achieving compliance through a
gradual phase-out of Stage 2 aircraft (i.e., eliminate 25% of its
Stage 2 fleet on each of the compliance dates noted above), or a
gradual phase-in of Stage 3 aircraft (i.e., 55%, 65% and 75% of an
operator's fleet must consist of Stage 3 aircraft by the
respective interim compliance dates noted above).

The federal rule does not prohibit local airports from issuing more stringent
phase-out rules. In fact, several local airports have adopted more stringent
noise requirements which restrict the operation of Stage 2 and certain Stage 3
aircraft.

Other countries have also adopted noise policies. The European Union (EU)
adopted a non-addition rule in 1989, which directed each member country to pass
the necessary legislation to prohibit airlines from adding Stage 2 aircraft to
their fleets after November 1, 1990, with all Stage 2 aircraft phased-out by the
year 2002. The International Civil Aviation Organization has also endorsed the
phase-out of Stage 2 aircraft on a world-wide basis by the year 2002.

The Partnership's aircraft are Stage 2 aircraft. Hushkit modifications, which
allow Stage 2 aircraft to meet Stage 3 requirements, are currently available for
the Partnership's aircraft. However, while technically feasible, hushkits may
not be cost effective due to the age of the aircraft and the time required to
fully amortize the additional investment. The Partnership may be required to
finance a hushkit for the aircraft leased to ATA, as previously discussed. The
general partner will evaluate, as appropriate, the potential benefits of
installing hushkits on the Partnership's other aircraft. It is unlikely,
however, that the Partnership would incur such costs unless they can be
substantially recovered through a lease. Implementation of the Stage 3 standards
has adversely affected the value of Stage 2 aircraft, as these aircraft will
require eventual modification to be operated in the U.S. or other countries with
Stage 3 standards after the applicable dates.

Demand for Aircraft - Industry-wide, approximately 280 commercial jet aircraft
were available for sale or lease at December 31, 1996, approximately 195 less
than a year ago, and at under 2.5% of the total available jet aircraft fleet,
this is the lowest level of availability since 1988. From 1991 to 1994,
depressed demand for travel limited airline expansion plans, with new aircraft
orders and scheduled deliveries being canceled or substantially deferred. As
profitability declined, many airlines took action to downsize or liquidate
assets and some airlines were forced to file for bankruptcy protection.
Following three years of good traffic growth accompanied by rising yields, this
trend is reversing with many airlines reporting record profits. As a result of
this improving trend, just over 1200 new jet aircraft were ordered in 1996,
making this the second highest ever order year in the history of the industry.
To date, this strong recovery has mainly benefited Stage 3 narrow-bodies and
younger Stage 2 narrow-bodies, many of which are now being upgraded with
hushkits, whereas older Stage 2 narrow-bodies have shown only marginal signs of
recovery since the depressed 1991 to 1994 period.

Effects on the Partnership's Aircraft - The Partnership periodically reviews the
estimated realizability of the residual values at the projected end of each
aircraft's economic life based on estimated residual values obtained from
independent parties which provide current and future estimated aircraft values
by aircraft type. The Partnership made downward adjustments to the estimated

<PAGE>

residual value of certain of its on-lease aircraft as of December 31, 1995 and
1994. For any downward adjustment in estimated residual value or decrease in the
projected remaining economic life, the depreciation expense over the projected
remaining economic life of the aircraft is increased.

If the projected net cash flow for each aircraft (projected rental revenue, net
of management fees, less projected maintenance costs, if any, plus the estimated
residual value) is less than the carrying value of the aircraft, the Partnership
recognizes the deficiency currently as increased depreciation expense. The
Partnership recognized approximately $8,254,000, $2,031,000 and $2,160,000, or
$118.90, $28.96 and $30.80 per limited Partnership unit, of this deficiency as
increased depreciation expense in 1996, 1995 and 1994, respectively. In 1996,
the impairment loss was the result of several significant factors. As a result
of industry and market changes, a more extensive review of the Partnership's
aircraft was completed in the fourth quarter of 1996 which resulted in revised
assumptions of future cash flows including reassessment of projected re-lease
terms and potential future maintenance costs. As discussed in Note 8, the
Partnership accepted an offer to purchase both of the Partnership's remaining
aircraft subject to each aircraft's existing lease. This offer constitutes an
event that required the Partnership to review the aircraft carrying value
pursuant to SFAS 121. In determining this additional impairment loss, the
Partnership estimated the fair value of the aircraft based on the purchase price
reflected in the offer, less the estimated costs and expenses of the proposed
sale. The Partnership recorded an impairment loss to the extent that the
carrying value exceeded the fair value. Management believes the assumptions
related to fair value of impaired assets represents the best estimates based on
reasonable and supportable assumptions and projections. It should be noted that
there can be no assurance that the contemplated sale transaction will be
consummated. The contemplated transaction remains subject to executing
definitive documentation and various other contingencies. The deficiencies in
1995 and 1994 were generally the result of declining estimates in the residual
values of the aircraft. The increased depreciation expense reduces the
aircraft's carrying value and therefore reduces the amount of future
depreciation expense that the Partnership will recognize over the projected
remaining economic life of the aircraft.

The Partnership's future earnings are impacted by the net effect of the
adjustments to the carrying values of the aircraft recorded in 1996, 1995 and
1994 (which has the effect of decreasing future depreciation expense) and the
downward adjustments to the estimated residual values recorded in 1995 and 1994
(which has the effect of increasing future depreciation expense). The net effect
of the 1994 adjustments to the estimated residual values and the adjustments to
the carrying values of the aircraft recorded in 1994 is to cause the Partnership
to recognize increased depreciation expense of approximately $143,000 in 1995
and 1996. The net effect of the 1995 adjustments to the estimated residual
values and the adjustments to the carrying values of the aircraft recorded in
1995 is to cause the Partnership to recognize increased depreciation expense of
approximately $231,000 in 1996.

Effective January 1, 1996, the Partnership adopted SFAS No. 121, "Accounting for
the Impairment of Long-Lived Assets and for Long-Lived Assets to be Disposed
Of." This statement requires that long-lived assets be reviewed for impairment
whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of
an asset may not be recoverable. In performing the review for recoverability,
the statement provides that the Partnership should estimate the future
undiscounted cash flows expected to result from the use of the asset and its
eventual disposition. If the projected net undiscounted cash flow for each
aircraft (projected rental revenue, net of management fees, less projected
maintenance costs, if any, plus the estimated residual value) is less than the
carrying value of the aircraft, an impairment loss is recognized. Pursuant to
the statement, measurement of an impairment loss for long-lived assets will be
based on the "fair value" of the asset as defined in the statement.

<PAGE>

estimate of fair value will be based on the best information available in the
circumstances. Pursuant to the statement, the estimate of fair value will
consider prices for similar assets and the results of valuation techniques to
the extent available in the circumstances. Examples of valuation techniques
include the present value of estimated expected future cash flows using a
discount rate commensurate with the risks involved, option-pricing models,
matrix pricing, option-adjusted spread models, and fundamental analysis.

The Partnership periodically reviews its aircraft for impairment in accordance
with SFAS No. 121. Using an estimate of the fair value of the Partnership's
aircraft to measure impairment may result in greater write-downs than would be
recognized under the accounting method previously applied by the Partnership.
The Partnership uses information obtained from third party valuation services in
arriving at its estimate of fair value for purposes of determining residual
values. The Partnership will use similar information, plus available information
and estimates related to the Partnership's aircraft, to determine an estimate of
fair value to measure impairment as required by the statement. The estimates of
fair value can vary dramatically depending on the condition of the specific
aircraft and the actual marketplace conditions at the time of the actual
disposition of the asset. If assets are deemed impaired, there could be
substantial write-downs in the future.

The Partnership's leases expire in March 1998 and March 2000. To the extent that
the Partnership's aircraft continue to be significantly affected by industry
events, the Partnership will evaluate each aircraft as it comes off lease to
determine whether a re-lease or a sale at the then-current market rates would be
most beneficial for Unit Holders.

<PAGE>

Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data

POLARIS AIRCRAFT INCOME FUND VI,
A California Limited Partnership

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND 1995

TOGETHER WITH

AUDITORS' REPORT

<PAGE>

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

To the Partners of
Polaris Aircraft Income Fund VI,
A California Limited Partnership:

We have audited the accompanying balance sheets of Polaris Aircraft Income Fund
VI, A California Limited Partnership, as of December 31, 1996 and 1995, and the
related statements of operations, changes in partners' capital and cash flows
for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 1996. These
financial statements are the responsibility of the general partner. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements 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 the
general partner, 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 Polaris Aircraft Income Fund
VI, A California Limited Partnership as of December 31, 1996 and 1995, and the
results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years in the
period ended December 31, 1996, in conformity with generally accepted accounting
principles.

ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

San Francisco, California
March 3, 1997

<PAGE>

POLARIS AIRCRAFT INCOME FUND VI,
A California Limited Partnership

BALANCE SHEETS

DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND 1995

1996 1995
----------- -----------
ASSETS:

CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS $ 3,566,009 $ 3,297,782

RENT RECEIVABLE 345,597 467,025

AIRCRAFT, net of accumulated depreciation
of $23,398,981 in 1996 and $13,390,080 in 1995 6,040,219 16,049,120
----------- -----------

$ 9,951,825 $19,813,927
=========== ===========

LIABILITIES AND PARTNERS' CAPITAL:

PAYABLE TO AFFILIATES $ 25,425 $ 26,362

ACCOUNTS PAYABLE AND ACCRUED
LIABILITIES 24,169 34,797

SECURITY DEPOSITS 75,000 94,000
----------- -----------

Total Liabilities 124,594 155,159
----------- -----------

PARTNERS' CAPITAL:
General Partner 5,656 5,656
Limited Partners, 69,418 units
issued and outstanding 9,821,575 19,653,112
----------- -----------

Total Partners' Capital 9,827,231 19,658,768
----------- -----------

$ 9,951,825 $19,813,927
=========== ===========

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.

<PAGE>

POLARIS AIRCRAFT INCOME FUND VI,
A California Limited Partnership

STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996, 1995 AND 1994

1996 1995 1994
------------ ------------ ------------

REVENUES:
Rent from operating leases $ 1,738,572 $ 2,117,575 $ 3,180,972
Interest and other 190,767 205,387 122,615
Gain on sale of aircraft 162,755 195,528 146,021
------------ ------------ ------------

Total Revenues 2,092,094 2,518,490 3,449,608
------------ ------------ ------------

EXPENSES:
Depreciation and amortization 10,008,901 3,927,648 3,885,603
Operating 409 1,930 56,586
Administration and other 87,532 115,989 92,421
------------ ------------ ------------

Total Expenses 10,096,842 4,045,567 4,034,610
------------ ------------ ------------

NET LOSS $ (8,004,748) $ (1,527,077) $ (585,002)
============ ============ ============

NET INCOME ALLOCATED
TO THE GENERAL PARTNER $ 91,340 $ 105,040 $ 109,607
============ ============ ============

NET LOSS ALLOCATED
TO LIMITED PARTNERS $ (8,096,088) $ (1,632,117) $ (694,609)
============ ============ ============

NET LOSS PER LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP UNIT $ (116.63) $ (23.51) $ (10.01)
============ ============ ============

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.

<PAGE>

POLARIS AIRCRAFT INCOME FUND VI,
A California Limited Partnership

STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN PARTNERS' CAPITAL

FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996, 1995 AND 1994

General Limited
Partner Partner Total
------- ------- -----

Balance, December 31, 1993 $ 5,656 $ 26,058,146 $ 26,063,802

Net income (loss) 109,607 (694,609) (585,002)

Cash distributions to partners (109,607) (2,082,540) (2,192,147)
------------ ------------ ------------

Balance, December 31, 1994 5,656 23,280,997 23,286,653

Net income (loss) 105,040 (1,632,117) (1,527,077)

Cash distributions to partners (105,040) (1,995,768) (2,100,808)
------------ ------------ ------------

Balance, December 31, 1995 5,656 19,653,112 19,658,768

Net income (loss) 91,340 (8,096,088) (8,004,748)

Cash distributions to partners (91,340) (1,735,449) (1,826,789)
------------ ------------ ------------

Balance, December 31, 1996 $ 5,656 $ 9,821,575 $ 9,827,231
============ ============ ============

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.

<PAGE>

POLARIS AIRCRAFT INCOME FUND VI,
A California Limited Partnership

STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996, 1995 AND 1994

1996 1995 1994
------------ ------------ ------------
OPERATING ACTIVITIES:
Net loss $ (8,004,748) $ (1,527,077) $ (585,002)
Adjustments to reconcile net
loss to net cash provided by
operating activities:
Depreciation and amortization 10,008,901 3,927,648 3,885,603
Gain on sale of aircraft (162,755) (195,528) (146,021)
Changes in operating assets
and liabilities:
Decrease in rent and
interest receivable 121,428 292,558 49,556
Increase (decrease) in
payable to affiliates (937) (10,668) 15,510
Increase (decrease) in
accounts payable and
accrued liabilities (10,628) 20,583 214
Decrease in security deposits (19,000) -- --
------------ ------------ ------------
Net cash provided by
operating activities 1,932,261 2,507,516 3,219,860
------------ ------------ ------------

INVESTING ACTIVITIES:
Principal payments on finance
sale of aircraft 162,755 195,528 146,021
------------ ------------ ------------

Net cash provided by
investing activities 162,755 195,528 146,021
------------ ------------ ------------

FINANCING ACTIVITIES:
Cash distributions to partners (1,826,789) (2,100,808) (2,192,147)
------------ ------------ ------------

Net cash used in
financing activities (1,826,789) (2,100,808) (2,192,147)
------------ ------------ ------------

CHANGES IN CASH AND CASH
EQUIVALENTS 268,227 602,236 1,173,734

CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS AT
BEGINNING OF PERIOD 3,297,782 2,695,546 1,521,812
------------ ------------ ------------

CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS AT
END OF PERIOD $ 3,566,009 $ 3,297,782 $ 2,695,546
============ ============ ============

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.

<PAGE>

POLARIS AIRCRAFT INCOME FUND VI,
A California Limited Partnership

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

DECEMBER 31, 1996

1. Accounting Principles and Policies

Accounting Method - Polaris Aircraft Income Fund VI, A California Limited
Partnership (PAIF-VI or the Partnership), maintains its accounting records,
prepares its financial statements and files its tax returns on the accrual basis
of accounting. The preparation of financial statements in conformity with
generally accepted accounting principles 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 most
significant estimates with regard to these financial statements are related to
the projected cash flows analysis in determining the fair value of assets.

Cash and Cash Equivalents - This includes deposits at banks and investments in
money market funds. Cash and cash equivalents is stated at cost, which
approximates fair value.

Aircraft and Depreciation - The aircraft are recorded at cost, which includes
acquisition costs. Depreciation to an estimated residual value is computed using
the straight-line method over the estimated economic life of the aircraft which
was originally estimated to be 30 years from the date of manufacture.
Depreciation in the year of acquisition was calculated based upon the number of
days that the aircraft were in service.

The Partnership periodically reviews the estimated realizability of the residual
values at the projected end of each aircraft's economic life based on estimated
residual values obtained from independent parties which provide current and
future estimated aircraft values by aircraft type. For any downward adjustment
in estimated residual value or decrease in the projected remaining economic
life, the depreciation expense over the projected remaining economic life of the
aircraft is increased.

If the projected net cash flow for each aircraft (projected rental revenue, net
of management fees, less projected maintenance costs, if any, plus the estimated
residual value) is less than the carrying value of the aircraft, an impairment
loss is recognized. Pursuant to Statement of Financial Accounting Standards
(SFAS) No. 121, as discussed in Note 3, measurement of an impairment loss will
be based on the "fair value" of the asset as defined in the statement.

Capitalized Costs - Aircraft modification and maintenance costs which are
determined to increase the value or extend the useful life of the aircraft are
capitalized and amortized using the straight-line method over the estimated
useful life of the improvement. These costs are also subject to periodic
evaluation as discussed above.

Operating Leases - The aircraft leases are accounted for as operating leases.
Lease revenues are recognized in equal installments over the terms of the
leases.

Operating Expenses - Operating expenses include costs incurred to maintain,
insure, lease and sell the Partnership's aircraft.

<PAGE>

Net Income (Loss) Per Limited Partnership Unit - Net income (loss) per limited
partnership unit is based on the limited partners' share of net income (loss),
and the number of units outstanding for the years ended December 31, 1996, 1995,
and 1994.

Income Taxes - The Partnership files federal and state information income tax
returns only. Taxable income or loss is reportable by the individual partners.

Note Receivable - The Partnership had recorded an allowance for credit losses
for an impaired note as a result of issues regarding its collection (Note 4).
The impaired note was paid in full during 1996. The Partnership recognizes
revenue on impaired notes only as payments are received.

1996 1995
---- ----
Allowance for credit losses,
beginning of year $ (162,755) $ (358,283)
Collections 162,755 195,528
---------- ----------
Allowance for credit losses,
end of year $ - $ (162,755)
========== ==========

2. Organization and the Partnership

The Partnership was formed on October 13, 1989 for the purpose of acquiring and
leasing aircraft. The Partnership will terminate no later than December 2020.
Upon organization, both the general partner and the depositary contributed $500.
The Partnership intended to sell between 36,000 and 500,000 depositary units,
representing assignments of limited partnership interest (Units), at a price of
$500 per Unit. Sales of Units commenced August 14, 1990. As of December 31,
1990, the general partner determined that it was in the best interest of the
existing investors to early terminate the offering of the Partnership's Units.
The offering terminated on January 22, 1991, at which time the Partnership had
sold 69,418 Units of $500, representing $34,709,000. All unit holders were
admitted to the Partnership on or before January 16, 1991.

Securities regulations specify a minimum percentage of gross proceeds which must
be invested in aircraft and reserves. The Partnership had raised slightly more
than it was able to invest in order to meet the specified percentage. Therefore,
in accordance with the Limited Partnership Agreement (Partnership Agreement),
the uninvested net proceeds were returned to unit holders on a pro-rata basis in
February 1991. The distribution amount of $610,878, or $8.80 per $500 limited
partnership unit, was a distribution of capital, as opposed to a distribution of
cash from operations.

Polaris Investment Management Corporation (PIMC), the sole general partner of
the Partnership, supervises the day-to-day operations of the Partnership.
Polaris Depositary Company VI (PDC) serves as the depositary. PIMC and PDC are
wholly-owned subsidiaries of Polaris Aircraft Leasing Corporation (PALC).
Polaris Holding Company (PHC) is the parent company of PALC. General Electric
Capital Corporation (GE Capital), an affiliate of General Electric Company, owns
100% of PHC's outstanding common stock. PIMC has entered into a services
agreement dated as of July 1, 1994 with GE Capital Aviation Services, Inc.
(GECAS). Allocations to affiliates are described in Note 5.

3. Aircraft Under Operating Leases

At December 31, 1996, the Partnership owned two used commercial jet aircraft,
which were acquired and leased or sold as discussed below. Two of these aircraft
were acquired from an affiliate and were purchased within one year of the
affiliate's acquisition at the affiliate's original price paid. The aircraft
leases are net operating leases, requiring the lessees to pay all operating

<PAGE>

expenses associated with the aircraft during the lease term including
Airworthiness Directives (ADs) which have been or may be issued by the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) and require compliance during the lease term. In
addition, see Note 4 for discussion of sale and transfer of title to Aeroperu.

The leases generally state a minimum acceptable return condition for which the
lessee is liable under the terms of the lease agreement. Conversely, the British
Airways Plc (British Airways) lease also provides that if the aircraft are
returned at a level above the minimum acceptable level, the Partnership must
reimburse the lessee for the related excess, subject to certain limitations. The
liability to this lessee, if any, cannot be currently estimated and therefore is
not reflected in the financial statements. The following table describes the
Partnership's current aircraft portfolio in greater detail:

Year of
Aircraft Type Serial Number Manufacture
- ------------- ------------- -----------
Boeing 727-200 Advanced 21996 1980
Boeing 737-200 Advanced 22026 1980

One Boeing 727-200 Advanced - This aircraft was acquired in December 1990 for
$13,100,000 and leased to USAir, Inc. (USAir) until December 1992. In December
1992, the Partnership negotiated a seven-year lease with ATA for the Boeing
727-200 Advanced aircraft formerly on lease to USAir at the then-current fair
market lease rate, which was approximately 47% of the prior rate. The lease
began in March 1993 and is renewable for up to three one-year periods. However,
ATA was not required to begin making cash rental payments until February 1994,
although rental income will be amortized over the entire lease term for book
purposes.

Under the ATA lease, the Partnership incurred certain maintenance costs of
approximately $537,000 and may be required to finance an aircraft hushkit at an
estimated cost of approximately $2.6 million, which would be partially recovered
with interest through payments from ATA over an extended lease term. As part of
the lease transaction, ATA transferred to the Partnership one unencumbered
Boeing 727-100 aircraft as discussed in Note 4.

One Boeing 737-200 Advanced - This aircraft was acquired for $15,800,000 in
October 1990 and leased to British Airways until April 1995, at which time the
lease was extended for three years until March 1998 at the then-current fair
market rental rate, which is approximately 40% of the prior rate.

The following is a schedule by year of future minimum rental revenue under the
existing leases:

Year Amount
---- ------
1997 $ 1,738,572
1998 949,239
1999 778,572
2000 168,691
2001 and thereafter -
-----------
Total $ 3,635,074
===========

Effective January 1, 1996, the Partnership adopted SFAS No. 121, "Accounting for
the Impairment of Long-Lived Assets and for Long-Lived Assets to be Disposed
Of." This statement requires that long-lived assets be reviewed for impairment
whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of
an asset may not be recoverable. In performing the review for recoverability,
the statement provides that the Partnership should estimate the future
undiscounted cash flows expected to result from the use of the asset and its
eventual disposition. If the projected undiscounted net cash flow for each
aircraft (projected rental revenue, net of management fees, less projected
maintenance costs, if any, plus the estimated residual value) is less than the
carrying value of the aircraft, an impairment loss is recognized.

<PAGE>

Pursuant to the statement, measurement of an impairment loss for long-lived
assets will be based on the "fair value" of the asset as defined in the
statement.

SFAS No. 121 states that the fair value of an asset is the amount at which the
asset could be bought or sold in a current transaction between willing parties,
i.e., other than in a forced or liquidation sale. Quoted market prices in active
markets are the best evidence of fair value and will be used as the basis for
the measurement, if available. If quoted market prices are not available, the
estimate of fair value will be based on the best information available in the
circumstances. Pursuant to the statement, the estimate of fair value will
consider prices for similar assets and the results of valuation techniques to
the extent available in the circumstances. Examples of valuation techniques
include the present value of estimated expected future cash flows using a
discount rate commensurate with the risks involved, option-pricing models,
matrix pricing, option-adjusted spread models, and fundamental analysis.

As discussed in Note 1, the Partnership periodically reviews the estimated
realizability of the residual values at the projected end of each aircraft's
economic life based on estimated residual values obtained from independent
parties which provide current and future estimated aircraft values by aircraft
type. The Partnership made downward adjustments to the estimated residual value
of certain of its on-lease aircraft as of December 31, 1995 and 1994. The
Partnership's future earnings are impacted by the net effect of the adjustments
to the carrying values of the aircraft (which has the effect of decreasing
future depreciation expense) and the downward adjustments to the estimated
residual values (which has the effect of increasing future depreciation
expense).

As discussed above, the Partnership uses information obtained from third party
valuation services in arriving at its estimate of fair value for purposes of
determining residual values. The Partnership will use similar information, plus
available information and estimates related to the Partnership's aircraft, to
determine an estimate of fair value to measure impairment as required by the
statement. The estimates of fair value can vary dramatically depending on the
condition of the specific aircraft and the actual marketplace conditions at the
time of the actual disposition of the asset. If assets are deemed impaired,
there could be substantial write-downs in the future.

The Partnership recognized impairment losses on aircraft to be held and used by
the Partnership of approximately $8,254,000, $2,031,000 and $2,160,000, or
$118.90, $28.96 and $30.80 per limited Partnership unit as increased
depreciation expense in 1996, 1995 and 1994, respectively. In 1996, the
impairment loss was the result of several significant factors. As a result of
industry and market changes, a more extensive review of the Partnership's
aircraft was completed in the fourth quarter of 1996 which resulted in revised
assumptions of future cash flows including reassessment of projected re-lease
terms and potential future maintenance costs. As discussed in Note 8, the
Partnership accepted an offer to purchase both of the Partnership's remaining
aircraft subject to each aircraft's existing lease. This offer constitutes an
event that required the Partnership to review the aircraft carrying value
pursuant to SFAS 121. In determining this additional impairment loss, the
Partnership estimated the fair value of the aircraft based on the purchase price
reflected in the offer, less the estimated costs and expenses of the proposed
sale. The Partnership recorded an impairment loss to the extent that the
carrying value exceeded the fair value. Management believes the assumptions
related to fair value of impaired assets represents the best estimates based on
reasonable and supportable assumptions and projections. It should be noted that
there can be no assurance that the contemplated sale transaction will be
consummated. The contemplated transaction remains subject to executing
definitive documentation and various other contingencies. The impairment losses
in 1995 and 1994 were generally the result of declining estimates in the
residual values of the aircraft.

<PAGE>

4. Sale to Aeroperu

In August 1993, the Partnership negotiated a sale to Aeroperu for the Boeing
727-100 aircraft that was transferred to the Partnership by ATA (Note 3). The
Partnership agreed to accept payment of the sales price of approximately
$578,000 in 36 monthly installments of $19,000, with interest at a rate of 12%
per annum. The Partnership recorded a note receivable and an allowance for
credit losses equal to the discounted sale price. Gain on sale of aircraft was
recognized as payments were received. During 1996, 1995 and 1994, the
Partnership received principal and interest payments due from Aeroperu totaling
$171,000, $228,000 and $190,000, respectively, of which $162,755, $195,528 and
$146,021 were recorded as gain on sale in the year ended December 31, 1996, 1995
and 1994 statements of operations, respectively. The note receivable and
corresponding allowance for credit losses were reduced by the principal portion
of payments received. The balances of the note receivable and corresponding
allowance for credit losses was $162,755 as of December 31, 1995. In July 1996,
the Partnership received the final payment due from Aeroperu and the remaining
balance of the security deposit posted by Aeroperu was applied to the last
installment due from Aeroperu. Title to the aircraft is expected to be
transferred to Aeroperu or its assignee in 1997.

5. Related Parties

Under the Partnership Agreement, the Partnership paid or agreed to pay the
following amounts to PIMC and/or its affiliates in connection with services
rendered:

a. A subordinated aircraft management fee to PIMC equal to 1.5%
of gross rental revenues of the Partnership, payable upon
receipt of the rent, subordinated each calendar year to
receipt by unit holders of distributions equaling a 10% per
annum, non-compounded return on adjusted capital
contributions, as defined in the Partnership Agreement. The
Partnership did not pay or incur any management fee expense in
1996, 1995 or 1994 as the above subordination threshold was
not met during these years.

b. Out-of-pocket expenses incurred in connection with the
management of the Partnership and its assets. The Partnership
paid $99,505, $106,976 and $133,268 to PIMC for such expenses
in 1996, 1995 and 1994, respectively. At December 31, 1996 and
1995, amounts payable to PIMC were $25,425 and $26,362,
respectively.

c. A 10% interest to PIMC in all cash distributions and sales
proceeds, 50% of which is subject to attainment of certain
subordination thresholds. PIMC is allocated gross income in an
amount equal to the gross allocation amount, as defined in the
Partnership Agreement, in proportion to and to the extent of
cash distributions made to the partners. Net income will be
allocated 1% to the General Partner and 99% to unit holders,
as such terms are defined in the Partnership Agreement. Gains
from the sale or other disposition of aircraft are allocated
to PIMC according to the method specified in the Partnership
Agreement.

d. A subordinated sales commission to PIMC of 3% of the gross
sales price of each aircraft for services performed upon
disposition and reimbursement of out-of-pocket and other
disposition expenses. Subordinated sales commissions will be
paid only after unit holders have received distributions in an
aggregate amount equal to their capital contributions plus a
cumulative non-compounded 10% per annum return on their
adjusted capital contributions, as defined in the Partnership
Agreement. The Partnership did not pay or accrue a sales
commission on any aircraft sales to date as the above
subordination threshold has not been met.

<PAGE>

6. Income Taxes

Federal and state income tax regulations provide that taxes on the income or
loss of the Partnership are reportable by the partners in their individual
income tax returns. Accordingly, no provision for such taxes has been made in
the financial statements.

The net differences between the tax basis and the reported amounts of the
Partnership's assets and liabilities at December 31, 1996 and 1995 are as
follows:

Reported Amounts Tax Basis Net Difference
---------------- --------- --------------

1996: Assets $ 9,951,825 $18,323,625 $(8,371,800)
Liabilities 124,594 124,594 -

1995: Assets $19,813,927 $20,685,130 $ (871,203)
Liabilities 155,159 136,159 19,000

7. Reconciliation of Book Net Loss to Taxable Net Income (Loss)

The following is a reconciliation between net loss per limited partnership unit
reflected in the financial statements and the information provided to limited
partners for federal income tax purposes:

For the years ended December 31,
--------------------------------

1996 1995 1994
---- ---- ----

Book net loss per limited partnership unit $(116.63) $ (23.51) $ (10.01)
Adjustments for tax purposes represent
differences between book and tax
revenue and expenses:
Rental revenue 1.75 1.75 0.31
Depreciation 108.42 20.77 20.15
Gain or loss on sale of aircraft (2.35) (2.82) (2.10)
Capitalized costs - - -
Other revenue and expense items (0.04) (0.06) 0.10
-------- -------- --------

Taxable net income (loss) per limited
partnership unit $ (8.85) $ (3.87) $ 8.45
======== ======== ========

The differences between net income and loss for book purposes and net income and
loss for tax purposes result from the temporary differences of certain revenue
and deductions.

For book purposes, rental revenue is generally recorded as it is earned. For tax
purposes, certain temporary differences exist in the recognition of revenue. For
tax purposes, the related management fee expense is accrued in the same year as
the tax basis rental revenue.

The Partnership computes depreciation using the straight-line method for
financial reporting purposes and generally an accelerated method for tax
purposes. The Partnership also periodically evaluates the ultimate
recoverability of the carrying values and the economic lives of its aircraft for

<PAGE>

book purposes and accordingly recognized adjustments which increased book
depreciation expense. As a result, the net current year book depreciation
expense is greater than the tax depreciation expense. These differences in
depreciation methods result in book to tax differences on the sale of aircraft.
In addition, certain costs were capitalized for tax purposes and expensed for
book purposes.

8. Subsequent Event

It is also contemplated that each of Polaris Aircraft Income Fund II, Polaris
Aircraft Income Fund III, Polaris Aircraft Income Fund IV and Polaris Aircraft
Income Fund V would sell certain aircraft assets to separate special purpose
companies under common management with the Purchaser (collectively, together
with the Purchaser, the "SPC's") on terms similar to those set forth above.
Under the terms of the contemplated transaction, Purchaser's Manager would
undertake to make available a working capital line to the Purchaser of up to
approximately $534,000 to fund operating obligations of the Purchaser. This
working capital line is to be guaranteed by Triton Investments, Ltd., the parent
of the Purchaser's Manager and such guarantor will provide the Partnership with
a copy of its most recent balance sheet showing a consolidated net worth (net of
minority interests) of at least $150-million. Furthermore, each of the SPC's,
including the Purchaser, is to enter into a management agreement with

<PAGE>

Purchaser's Manager pursuant to which Purchaser's Manager would provide all
normal and customary management services including remarketing, sales and
repossession, if necessary. Provided that the Purchaser is not in default in
making payments due under the Promissory Note to the Partnership, the Purchaser
would be permitted to dividend to its equity owners an amount not to exceed
approximately $14,300 per month. The Purchaser may distribute additional
dividends to the equity owners to the extent of the working capital advances
made by the Purchaser's Manager provided that the working capital line available
to the Purchaser will be deemed increased to the extent of any such dividends.

The Partnership adopted, effective January 1, 1996, SFAS No. 121 "Accounting for
the Impairment of Long-Lived Assets and for Long-Lived Assets to be Disposed
Of." That statement requires that long-lived assets be reviewed for impairment
whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of
an asset may not be recoverable. The purchase offer constitutes a change in
circumstances which, pursuant to SFAS No. 121, requires the Partnership to
review the Aircraft for impairment. As previously discussed in Note 3, the
Partnership has determined that an impairment loss must be recognized. In
determining the amount of the impairment loss, the Partnership estimated the
"fair value" of the Aircraft based on the proposed Purchase Price reflected in
the contemplated transaction , less the estimated costs and expenses of the
proposed sale. The Partnership is deemed to have an impairment loss to the
extent that the carrying value exceeded the fair value. Management believes the
assumptions related to the fair value of impaired assets represent the best
estimates based on reasonable and supportable assumptions and projections.

<PAGE>

Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and
Financial Disclosure

None.

<PAGE>

PART III

Item 10. Directors and Executive Officers of the Registrant

Polaris Aircraft Income Fund VI, A California Limited Partnership (PAIF-VI or
the Partnership) has no directors or officers. Polaris Holding Company (PHC) and
its subsidiaries, including Polaris Aircraft Leasing Corporation (PALC) and
Polaris Investment Management Corporation (PIMC), the general partner of the
Partnership (collectively Polaris), restructured their operations and businesses
(the Polaris Restructuring) in 1994. In connection therewith, PIMC entered into
a services agreement dated as of July 1, 1994 (the Services Agreement) with GE
Capital Aviation Services, Inc. (the Servicer or GECAS), a Delaware corporation
which is a wholly owned subsidiary of General Electric Capital Corporation, a
New York corporation (GE Capital). GE Capital has been PHC's parent company
since 1986. As subsidiaries of GE Capital, the Servicer and PIMC are affiliates.

The officers and directors of PIMC are:

Name PIMC Title
--------------------- -----------------------------

Eric M. Dull President; Director
Marc A. Meiches Vice President; Chief Financial Officer
Richard J. Adams Vice President; Director
Norman C. T. Liu Vice President; Director
Edward Sun Vice President
Richard L. Blume Vice President; Secretary
Robert W. Dillon Vice President; Assistant Secretary

Substantially all of these management personnel will devote only such portion of
their time to the business and affairs of PIMC as deemed necessary or
appropriate.

Mr. Dull, 36, assumed the position of President and Director of PIMC effective
January 1, 1997. Mr. Dull previously was a Director of PIMC from March 31, 1995
to July 31, 1995. Mr. Dull holds the position of Executive Vice President -
Portfolio Management of GECAS, having previously held the position of Senior
Vice President - Underwriting Risk Management of GECAS. Prior to joining GECAS,
Mr. Dull held various positions with Transportation and Industrial Funding
Corporation (TIFC).

Mr. Meiches, 44, assumed the position of Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of PIMC effective October 9, 1995. Mr. Meiches presently holds the
positions of Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of GECAS.
Prior to joining GECAS, Mr. Meiches has been with General Electric Company (GE)
and its subsidiaries since 1978. Since 1992, Mr. Meiches held the position of
Vice President of the General Electric Capital Corporation Audit Staff. Between
1987 and 1992, Mr. Meiches held Manager of Finance positions for GE Re-entry
Systems, GE Government Communications Systems and the GE Astro-Space Division.

Mr. Adams, 63, assumed the position of Senior Vice President - Aircraft Sales
and Leasing of PIMC and PALC effective August 1992, having previously served as
Vice President - Aircraft Sales & Leasing - Vice President, North America, and
Vice President - Corporate Aircraft since he joined PALC in August 1986. Mr.
Adams presently holds the position of Senior Vice President - Aircraft
Marketing, North America, of GECAS. Effective July 1, 1994, Mr. Adams held the
positions of Vice President and Director of PIMC.

Mr. Liu, 39, assumed the position of Vice President of PIMC effective May 1,
1995 and has assumed the position of Director of PIMC effective July 31, 1995.

<PAGE>

Mr. Liu presently holds the position of Executive Vice President - Marketing and
Structured Finance of GECAS, having previously held the position of Executive
Vice President - Capital Funding and Portfolio Management of GECAS. Prior to
joining GECAS, Mr. Liu was with General Electric Capital Corporation for nine
years. He has held management positions in corporate Business Development and in
Syndications and Leasing for TIFC. Mr. Liu previously held the position of
managing director of Kidder, Peabody & Co., Incorporated.

Mr. Sun, 47, assumed the position of Vice President of PIMC effective May 1,
1995. Mr. Sun presently holds the position of Senior Vice President - Structured
Finance of GECAS. Prior to joining GECAS, Mr. Sun held various positions with
TIFC since 1990.

Mr. Blume, 55, assumed the position of Secretary of PIMC effective May 1, 1995
and Vice President of PIMC effective October 9, 1995. Mr. Blume presently holds
the position of Executive Vice President and General Counsel of GECAS. Prior to
joining GECAS, Mr. Blume was counsel at GE Aircraft Engines since 1987.

Mr. Dillon, 55, assumed the position of Vice President - Aviation Legal and
Insurance Affairs, effective April 1989. Previously, he served as General
Counsel of PIMC and PALC effective January 1986. Effective July 1, 1994, Mr.
Dillon held the positions of Vice President and Assistant Secretary of PIMC. Mr.
Dillon presently holds the position of Senior Vice President and Managing
Counsel of GECAS.

Certain Legal Proceedings:

On October 27, 1992, a class action complaint entitled Weisl, Jr. et al. v.
Polaris Holding Company, et al. was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of
New York for the County of New York. The complaint sets forth various causes of
action which include allegations against certain or all of the defendants (I)
for alleged fraud in connection with certain public offerings, including that of
the Partnership, on the basis of alleged misrepresentation and alleged omissions
contained in the written offering materials and all presentations allegedly made
to investors; (ii) for alleged negligent misrepresentation in connection with
such offerings; (iii) for alleged breach of fiduciary duties; (iv) for alleged
breach of third party beneficiary contracts; (v) for alleged violations of the
NASD Rules of Fair Practice by certain registered broker dealers; and (vi) for
alleged breach of implied covenants in the customer agreements by certain
registered brokers. The complaint seeks an award of compensatory and other
damages and remedies. On January 19, 1993, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification. On March 1, 1993, defendants filed motions to dismiss the
complaint on numerous grounds, including failure to state a cause of action and
statute of limitations. On July 20, 1994, the court entered an order dismissing
almost all of the claims in the complaint and amended complaint. Certain claims,
however, remain pending. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on September 2,
1994. On April 25, 1996, the Appellate Division for the First Department
affirmed the trial court's order which had dismissed most of plaintiffs' claims.
The Partnership is not named as a defendant in this action.

On or around February 17, 1993, a civil action entitled Einhorn, et al. v.
Polaris Public Income Funds, et al. was filed in the Circuit Court of the 11th
Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida against, among others, Polaris
Investment Management Corporation and Polaris Depositary Company. Plaintiffs
seek class action certification on behalf of a class of investors in the
Partnership, Polaris Aircraft Income Fund IV, and Polaris Aircraft Income Fund V
who purchased their interests while residing in Florida. Plaintiffs allege the
violation of Section 517.301, Florida Statutes, in connection with the offering
and sale of units in such Polaris Aircraft Income Funds. Among other things,
plaintiffs assert that the defendants sold interests in such Polaris Aircraft
Income Funds while "omitting and failing to disclose the material facts
questioning the economic efficacy of" such Polaris Aircraft Income Funds.
Plaintiffs seek rescission or damages, in addition to interest, costs, and
attorneys' fees. On April 5, 1993, defendants filed a motion to stay this action
pending the final determination of a prior filed action in the Supreme Court for
the State of New York entitled Weisl v. Polaris Holding Company. On that date,

<PAGE>

defendants also filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds of
failure to attach necessary documents, failure to plead fraud with particularity
and failure to plead reasonable reliance. On April 13, 1993, the court denied
the defendants' motion to stay. On May 7, 1993, the court stayed the action
pending an appeal of the denial of the motion to stay. Defendants subsequently
filed with the Third District Court of Appeal a petition for writ of certiorari
to review the lower court's order denying the motion to stay. On October 19,
1993, the Court of Appeal granted the writ of certiorari, quashed the order, and
remanded the action with instruction to grant the stay. The Partnership is not
named as a defendant in this action.

On or around May 14, 1993, a purported class action entitled Moross, et al. v.
Polaris Holding Company, et al. was filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona. This purported class action was filed on behalf of
investors in Polaris Aircraft Income Funds I - VI by nine investors in such
Polaris Aircraft Income Funds. The complaint alleges that defendants violated
Arizona state securities statues and committed negligent misrepresentation and
breach of fiduciary duty by misrepresenting and failing to disclose material
facts in connection with the sale of limited partnership units in the
above-named funds. An amended complaint was filed on September 17, 1993, but has
not been served upon defendants. On or around October 4, 1993, defendants filed
a notice of removal to the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona. Defendants also filed a motion to stay the action pending the final
determination of a prior filed action in the Supreme Court for the State of New
York entitled Weisl v. Polaris Holding Company ("Weisl") and to defendants' time
to respond to the complaint until 20 days after disposition of the motion to
action pending resolution of the motions for class certification and motions to
dismiss pending in Weisl. On January 20, 1994, the court stayed the action and
required defendants to file status reports every sixty days setting forth the
status of the motions in Weisl. On April 18, 1995, this action was transferred
to the Multi-District Litigation described below. The Partnership is not named
as a defendant in this action.

On September 21, 1993, a purported derivative action entitled Novak, et al. v.
Polaris Holding Company, et al. was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of
New York, County of New York. This action was brought on behalf of the
Partnership, Polaris Aircraft Income Fund II and Polaris Aircraft Income Fund
III. The complaint names as defendants Polaris Holding Company, its affiliates
and others. Each of the Partnership, Polaris Aircraft Income Fund II and Polaris
Aircraft Income Fund III is named as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleges,
among other things, that defendants mismanaged the Partnership and the other
Polaris Aircraft Income Funds, engaged in self-dealing transactions that were
detrimental to the Partnership and the other Polaris Aircraft Income Funds and
failed to make required disclosure in connection with the sale of the units in
the Partnership and the other Polaris Aircraft Income Funds. The complaint
alleges claims of breach of fiduciary duty and constructive fraud and seeks,
among other things an award of compensatory and punitive damages in an
unspecified amount, re-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. On
January 13, 1994, certain of the defendants, including Polaris Holding Company,
filed motions to dismiss the complaint on the grounds of, among others, failure
to state a cause of action and failure to plead the alleged wrong in detail. On
August 11, 1994, the court denied in part and granted in part defendants'
motions to dismiss. Specifically, the court denied the motions as to the claims
for breach of fiduciary duty, but dismissed plaintiffs' claim for constructive
fraud with leave to replead. On October 7, 1994, defendants filed a notice of
appeal. On November 15, 1994, defendants submitted an answer to the remaining
causes of action. On July 7, 1995, defendants filed briefs in support of their
appeal from that portion of the trial court's order denying the motion to
dismiss. On March 14, 1996, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order
denying the motion to dismiss, and dismissed the complaint.

On June 8, 1994, a consolidated complaint captioned In re Prudential Securities
Inc. Limited Partnerships Litigation was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, purportedly consolidating cases
that had been transferred from other federal courts by the Judicial Panel on
Multi- District Litigation. The consolidated complaint names as defendants
Prudential entities and various other sponsors of limited partnerships sold by
Prudential, including Polaris Holding Company, one of its former officers,
Polaris Aircraft Leasing Corporation, Polaris Investment Management Corporation

<PAGE>

and Polaris Securities Corporation. The complaint alleges that the Prudential
defendants created a scheme for the sale of approximately $8-billion of limited
partnership interests in 700 assertedly high-risk limited partnerships,
including the Partnership, to approximately 350,000 investors by means of false
and misleading offering materials; that the sponsoring organizations (including
the Polaris entities) participated with the Prudential defendants with respect
to, among other things, the partnerships that each sponsored; and that all of
the defendants conspired to engage in a nationwide pattern of fraudulent conduct
in the marketing of all limited partnerships sold by Prudential. The complaint
alleges violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act and the New Jersey counterpart thereof, fraud, negligent misrepresentation,
breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract. The complaint seeks rescission,
unspecified compensatory damages, treble damages, disgorgement of profits
derived from the alleged acts, costs and attorneys fees. On October 31, 1994,
Polaris Investment Management Corporation and other Polaris entities filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on the grounds of, inter alia,
statute of limitations and failure to state a claim. The Partnership is not
named as a defendant in this action. Prudential Securities, Inc., on behalf of
itself and its affiliates has made an Offer of Settlement. A class has been
certified for purposes of the Prudential Settlement and notice to the class has
been sent. Any questions concerning Prudential's Offer of Settlement should be
directed to 1-800-327-3664, or write to the Claims Administrator at:

Prudential Securities Limited Partnerships
Litigation Claims Administrator
P.O. Box 9388
Garden City, New York 11530-9388

On June 5, 1996, the Court certified a class with respect to claims against
Polaris Holding Company, one of its former officers, Polaris Aircraft Leasing
Corporation, Polaris Investment Management Corporation, and Polaris Securities
Corporation. The class is comprised of all investors who purchased securities in
any of Polaris Aircraft Income Funds I through VI during the period from January
1985 until January 29, 1991, regardless of which brokerage firm the investor
purchased from. Excepted from the class are those investors who settled in the
SEC/Prudential settlement or otherwise opted for arbitration pursuant to the
settlement and any investor who has previously released the Polaris defendants
through any other settlement. On June 10, 1996, the Court issued an opinion
denying summary judgment to Polaris on plaintiffs' Section 1964(c) and (d) RICO
claims and state causes of action, and granting summary judgment to Polaris on
plaintiffs' 1964(a) RICO claims and the New Jersey State RICO claims. On August
5, 1996, the Court signed an order providing for notice to be given to the class
members. The trial, which was scheduled for November 11, 1996, has not
proceeded, and no new trial date has been set.

A further litigation captioned Romano v. Ball et. al, an action by Prudential
Insurance Company policyholders against many of the same defendants (including
Polaris Investment Management Corporation and Polaris Aircraft Leasing
Corporation), has also been commenced by policy holders of the Prudential
Insurance Company as a purported derivative action on behalf of the Prudential
Insurance Company. The complaint alleges claims under the federal Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, as well as claims for waste,
mismanagement and intentional and negligent misrepresentation, and seeks
unspecified compensatory, treble and punitive damages. The case, which was being
coordinated with In re Prudential, has been settled and the action dismissed
pursuant to a court order dated December 18, 1996.

On or about February 13, 1995, an action entitled Adams, et al. v. Prudential
Securities, Inc. et al. was filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Stark County,
Ohio. The action names Prudential Securities, Inc., Prudential Insurance Company
of America, Polaris Investment Management Corporation, Polaris Securities
Corporation, Polaris Aircraft Leasing Corporation, Polaris Holding Company,
General Electric Capital Corporation, Polaris Aircraft Income Fund I, Polaris
Aircraft Income Fund IV, Polaris Aircraft Income Fund V and James Darr as
defendants. The complaint alleges that defendants committed common law fraud,
fraud in the inducement, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, breach of

<PAGE>

fiduciary duty and civil conspiracy by misrepresenting and failing to disclose
material facts in connection with the sale of limited partnership units in
Polaris Aircraft Income Fund I, Polaris Aircraft Income Fund IV, and Polaris
Aircraft Income Fund V. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, rescission of their
investments in the Polaris Aircraft Income Funds, an award of compensatory
damages in an unspecified amount plus interest thereon, and punitive damages in
an unspecified amount. On or about March 15, 1995, this action was removed to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern
Division. Subsequently, the Judicial Panel transferred this action to the
Multi-District Litigation filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, discussed above. The Partnership is not named as
a defendant in this action.

On or about January 12, 1995, a class action complaint entitled Cohen, et al. v.
Kidder Peabody & Company, Inc., et al. was filed in the Circuit Court of the
Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, and on March
31, 1995 the case was removed to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida. An amended class action complaint (the "amended
complaint"), which renamed this action Bashein, et al. v. Kidder, Peabody &
Company Inc., et al., was filed on June 13, 1995. The amended complaint names
Kidder Peabody & Company, Inc., General Electric Capital Corporation, General
Electric Financial Services, Inc., and General Electric Company as defendants.
The action purports to be on behalf of "approximately 20,000 persons throughout
the United States" who purchased units in Polaris Aircraft Income Funds III
through VI. The amended complaint sets forth various causes of action
purportedly arising in connection with the public offerings of the Partnership,
Polaris Aircraft Income Fund III, Polaris Aircraft Income Fund IV, and Polaris
Aircraft Income Fund V. Specifically, plaintiffs assert claims for violation of
Sections 12(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of third party beneficiary
contract, violation of NASD Rules of Fair Practice, breach of implied covenant,
and breach of contract. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, interest, punitive
damages, costs and attorneys' fees, as well as any other relief the court deems
just and proper. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on June 26,
1995. On October 2, 1995, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss.
While the motion to dismiss was pending, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
file a second amended complaint, which was granted on October 3, 1995.
Defendants thereafter filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint,
and defendants' motion was denied by Court Order dated December 26, 1995. On
February 12, 1996, defendants answered. This case was reassigned (from Hurley,
J. To Lenard, J.) on February 18, 1996, and on March 18, 1996, plaintiffs moved
for class certification. On the eve of class discovery, April 26, 1996,
plaintiffs moved for a voluntary dismissal of Counts I and II (claims brought
pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933) of the Second Amended Complaint and
simultaneously filed a motion to remand this action to state court for lack of
federal jurisdiction. Plaintiff's motion for voluntary dismissal of the federal
securities law claims and motion for remand were granted on July 10, 1996. The
Partnership is not named as a defendant in this action.

On or around April 13, 1995, a class action complaint entitled B & L Industries,
Inc., et al. v. Polaris Holding Company, et al. was filed in the Supreme Court
of the State of New York. The complaint names as defendants Polaris Holding
Company, Polaris Aircraft Leasing Corporation, Polaris Investment Management
Corporation, Polaris Securities Corporation, Peter G. Pfendler, Marc P.
Desautels, General Electric Capital Corporation, General Electric Financial
Services, Inc., General Electric Company, Prudential Securities Inc., and Kidder
Peabody & Company Incorporated. The complaint sets forth various causes of
action purportedly arising out of the public offerings of Polaris Aircraft
Income Fund III and Polaris Aircraft Income Fund IV. Plaintiffs allege claims of
fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, knowingly inducing
or participating in breach of fiduciary duty, breach of third party beneficiary
contract, violation of NASD Rules of Fair Practice, breach of implied covenant,
and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, interest, general,
consequential and incidental damages, exemplary and punitive damages,
disgorgement, rescission, costs, attorneys' fees, accountants' and experts'
fees, and other legal and equitable relief as the court deems just and proper.
On October 2, 1995, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. On August 16,

<PAGE>

1996, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint. The
motion is returnable on July 17, 1997. The Partnership is not named as a
defendant in this action.

On or around September 27, 1995, a complaint entitled Martha J. Harrison v.
General Electric Company, et al. was filed in the Civil District Court for the
Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana. The complaint names as defendants General
Electric Company and Prudential Securities Incorporated. Plaintiff alleges
claims of tort, breach of fiduciary duty in tort, contract and quasi-contract,
violation of sections of the Louisiana Blue Sky Law and violation of the
Louisiana Civil Code concerning the inducement and solicitation of purchases
arising out of the public offering of Polaris Aircraft Income Fund IV. Plaintiff
seeks compensatory damages, attorney's fees, interest, costs and general relief.
The Partnership is not named as a defendant in this action.

On or around December 8, 1995, a complaint entitled Overby, et al. v. General
Electric Company, et al. was filed in the Civil District Court for the Parish of
Orleans, State of Louisiana. The complaint names as defendants General Electric
Company and General Electric Capital Corporation. Plaintiffs allege claim of
tort, breach of fiduciary duty, in tort, contract and quasi-contract, violation
of sections of the Louisiana Blue Sky Law and violation of the Louisiana Civil
Code in connection with the public offering of Polaris Aircraft Income Funds III
and IV. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, interest, costs
and general relief. The Partnership is not named as a defendant in this action.

In or around November 1994, a complaint entitled Lucy R. Neeb, et al. v.
Prudential Securities Incorporated et al. was filed in the Civil District Court
for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana. The complaint named as defendants
Prudential Securities, Incorporated and Stephen Derby Gisclair. On or about
December 20, 1995, plaintiffs filed a First Supplemental and Amending Petition
adding as additional defendants General Electric Company, General Electric
Capital Corporation and Smith Barney, Inc. Plaintiffs allege claims of tort,
breach of fiduciary duty, in tort, contract and quasi-contract, violation of
sections of the Louisiana Blue Sky Law and violation of the Louisiana Civil Code
in connection with the public offering of Polaris Aircraft Income Funds III and
IV. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, interest, costs and
general relief. The Partnership is not named as a defendant in this action.

In or about January of 1995, a complaint entitled Albert B. Murphy, Jr. v.
Prudential Securities, Incorporated et al. was filed in the Civil District Court
for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana. The complaint named as defendants
Prudential Securities Incorporated and Stephen Derby Gisclair. On or about
January 18, 1996, plaintiff filed a First Supplemental and Amending Petition
adding defendants General Electric Company and General Electric Capital
Corporation. Plaintiff alleges claims of tort, breach of fiduciary duty in tort,
contract and quasi-contract, violation of sections of the Louisiana Blue Sky Law
and violation of the Louisiana Civil Code in connection with the public offering
of Polaris Aircraft Income Funds III and IV. Plaintiffs seek compensatory
damages, attorneys' fees, interest, costs and general relief.
The Partnership is not named as a defendant in this action.

On or about January 22, 1996, a complaint entitled Mrs. Rita Chambers, et al. v.
General Electric Co., et al. was filed in the Civil District Court for the
Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana. The complaint names as defendants General
Electric Company and General Electric Capital Corporation. Plaintiffs allege
claims of tort, breach of fiduciary duty in tort, contract and quasi-contract,
violation of sections of the Louisiana Blue Sky Law and violation of the
Louisiana Civil Code in connection with the public offering of Polaris Aircraft
Income Fund IV. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, interest,
costs and general relief. The Partnership is not named as a defendant in this
action.

In or around December 1994, a complaint entitled John J. Jones, Jr. v.
Prudential Securities Incorporated et al. was filed in the Civil District Court
for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana. The complaint named as defendants
Prudential Securities, Incorporated and Stephen Derby Gisclair. On or about
March 29, 1996, plaintiffs filed a First Supplemental and Amending Petition

<PAGE>

adding as additional defendants General Electric Company and General Electric
Capital Corporation. Plaintiff alleges claims of tort, breach of fiduciary duty
in tort, contract and quasi-contract, violation of sections of the Louisiana
Blue Sky Law and violation of the Louisiana Civil Code concerning the inducement
and solicitation of purchases arising out of the public offering of Polaris
Aircraft Income Fund III. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, attorneys' fees,
interest, costs and general relief. The Partnership is not named as a defendant
in this action.

On or around February 16, 1996, a complaint entitled Henry Arwe, et al. v.
General Electric Company, et al. was filed in the Civil District Court for the
Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana. The complaint named as defendants General
Electric Company and General Electric Capital Corporation. Plaintiffs allege
claims of tort, breach of fiduciary duty in tort, contract and quasi-contract,
violation of sections of the Louisiana Blue Sky Law and violation of the
Louisiana Civil Code concerning the inducement and solicitation of purchases
arising out of the public offering of Polaris Aircraft Income Funds III and IV.
Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, interest, costs and
general relief. The Partnership is not named as a defendant in this action.

On or about April 9, 1996, a summons and First Amended Complaint entitled Sara
J. Bishop, et al. v. Kidder Peabody & Co., et al. was filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Sacramento, by over one hundred
individual plaintiffs who purchased limited partnership units in Polaris
Aircraft Income Funds III, IV, V and VI and other limited partnerships sold by
Kidder Peabody. The complaint names Kidder, Peabody & Co. Incorporated, KP
Realty Advisors, Inc., Polaris Holding Company, Polaris Aircraft Leasing
Corporation, Polaris Investment Management Corporation, Polaris Securities
Corporation, Polaris Jet Leasing, Inc., Polaris Technical Services, Inc.,
General Electric Company, General Electric Financial Services, Inc., General
Electric Capital Corporation, General Electric Credit Corporation and DOES 1-100
as defendants. The complaint alleges violations of state common law, including
fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of
the rules of the National Association of Securities Dealers. The complaint seeks
to recover compensatory damages and punitive damages in an unspecified amount,
interest, and rescission with respect to the Polaris Aircraft Income Funds
III-VI and all other limited partnerships alleged to have been sold by Kidder
Peabody to the plaintiffs. On June 18, 1996, defendants filed a motion to
transfer venue from Sacramento to San Francisco County. The Court subsequently
denied the motion. The Partnership is not named as a defendant in this action.
Defendants filed an answer in the action on August 30, 1996.

On October 1, 1996, a complaint entitled Wilson et al. v. Polaris Holding
Company et al. was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Sacramento by over 500 individual plaintiffs who purchased limited
partnership units in one or more of Polaris Aircraft Income Funds I through VI.
The complaint names Polaris Holding Company, Polaris Aircraft Leasing
Corporation, Polaris Investment Management Corporation, Polaris Securities
Corporation, Polaris Jet Leasing, Inc., Polaris Technical Services, Inc.,
General Electric Company, General Electric Capital Services, Inc., General
Electric Capital Corporation, GE Capital Aviation Services, Inc. and DOES 1-100
as defendants. The Partnership has not been named as a defendant. The complaint
alleges violations of state common law, including fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, negligence, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty.
The complaint seeks to recover compensatory damages and punitive damages in an
unspecified amount, interest and rescission with respect to the Polaris Aircraft
Income Funds sold to plaintiffs. Defendants have filed an answer.

On or about May 7, 1996, a petition entitled Charles Rich, et al. v. General
Electric Company and General Electric Capital Corporation was filed in the Civil
District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana. The complaint
names as defendants General Electric Company and General Electric Capital
Corporation. Plaintiffs allege claims of tort concerning the inducement and
solicitation of purchases arising out of the public offering of Polaris Aircraft
Income Funds III and IV. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, attorneys' fees,
interest, costs and general relief. The Partnership is not named as a defendant
in this action.

<PAGE>

On or about March 4, 1996, a petition entitled Richard J. McGiven v. General
Electric Company and General Electric Capital Corporation was filed in the Civil
District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana. The complaint
names as defendants General Electric Company and General Electric Capital
Corporation. Plaintiff alleges claims of tort concerning the inducement and
solicitation of purchases arising out of the public offering of Polaris Aircraft
Income Fund V. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, interest,
costs and general relief. The Partnership is not named as a defendant in this
action.

On or about March 4, 1996, a petition entitled Alex M. Wade v. General Electric
Company and General Electric Capital Corporation was filed in the Civil District
Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana. The complaint names as
defendants General Electric Company and General Electric Capital Corporation.
Plaintiff alleges claims of tort concerning the inducement and solicitation of
purchases arising out of the public offering of Polaris Aircraft Income Fund V.
Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, interest, costs and
general relief. The Partnership is not named as a defendant in this action.

On or about October 15, 1996, a complaint entitled Joyce H. McDevitt, et al. v.
Polaris Holding Company, et al. was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Sacramento, by individual plaintiffs who purchased limited
partnership units in Polaris Aircraft Income Funds I-VI. The complaint names
Polaris Holding Company, Polaris Aircraft Leasing Corporation, Polaris
Investment Management Corporation, Polaris Securities Corporation, Polaris Jet
Leasing, Inc., Polaris Technical Services, Inc., General Electric Company,
General Electric Financial Services, Inc., General Electric Capital Corporation,
General Electric Credit Corporation and DOES 1-100 as defendants. The complaint
alleges violations of state common law, including fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of the rules of the
National Association of Securities Dealers. The complaint seeks to recover
compensatory damages and punitive damages in an unspecified amount, interest,
and recision with respect to Polaris Aircraft Income Funds I-VI. The Partnership
is not named as a defendant in this action.

On or about October 16, 1996, a complaint entitled Mary Grant Tarrer, et al.
v.Kidder Peabody & Co.,et al. was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Sacramento, by individual plaintiffs who purchased limited
partnership units in Polaris Aircraft Income Funds I-VI and other limited
partnerships allegedly sold by Kidder Peabody. The complaint names Kidder,
Peabody & Co. Incorporated, KP Realty Advisors, Inc., Polaris Holding Company,
Polaris Aircraft Leasing Corporation, Polaris Investment Management Corporation,
Polaris Securities Corporation, Polaris Jet Leasing, Inc., Polaris Technical
Services, Inc., General Electric Company, General Electric Financial Services,
Inc., General Electric Capital Corporation, General Electric Credit Corporation
and DOES 1-100 as defendants. The complaint alleges violations of state common
law, including fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, and
violations of the rules of the National Association of Securities Dealers. The
complaint seeks to recover compensatory damages and punitive damages in an
unspecified amount, interest, and recission with respect to Polaris Aircraft
Income Funds I-VI and all other limited partnerships alleged to have been sold
by Kidder Peabody to the plaintiffs. The Partnership is not named as a defendant
in this action.

On or about November 6, 1996, a complaint entitled Janet K. Johnson, et al. v.
Polaris Holding Company, et al. was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Sacramento, by individual plaintiffs who purchased limited
partnership units in Polaris Aircraft Income Funds I-VI. The complaint names
Polaris Holding Company, Polaris Aircraft Leasing Corporation, Polaris
Investment Management Corporation, Polaris Securities Corporation, Polaris Jet
Leasing, Inc., Polaris Technical Services, Inc., General Electric Company,
General Electric Financial Services, Inc., General Electric Capital Corporation,
General Electric Credit Corporation and DOES 1-100 as defendants. The complaint
alleges violations of state common law, including fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of the rules of the
National Association of Securities Dealers. The complaint seeks to recover
compensatory damages and punitive damages in an unspecified amount, interest,
and recission with respect to Polaris Aircraft Income Funds I-VI. The
Partnership is not named as a defendant in this action.

<PAGE>

On or about November 13, 1996, a complaint entitled Wayne W. Kuntz, et al. v.
Polaris Holding Company, et al. was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Sacramento, by individual plaintiffs who purchased limited
partnership units in Polaris Aircraft Income Funds I-VI. The complaint names
Polaris Holding Company, Polaris Aircraft Leasing Corporation, Polaris
Investment Management Corporation, Polaris Securities Corporation, Polaris Jet
Leasing, Inc., Polaris Technical Services, Inc., General Electric Company,
General Electric Financial Services, Inc., General Electric Capital Corporation,
General Electric Credit Corporation and DOES 1-100 as defendants. The complaint
alleges violations of state common law, including fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of the rules of the
National Association of Securities Dealers. The complaint seeks to recover
compensatory damages and punitive damages in an unspecified amount, interest,
and recission with respect to Polaris Aircraft Income Funds I-VI. The
Partnership is not named as a defendant in this action.

On or about November 26, 1996, a complaint entitled Thelma Abrams, et al. v.
Polaris Holding Company, et al. was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Sacramento, by individual plaintiffs who purchased limited
partnership units in Polaris Aircraft Income Funds I-VI. The complaint names
Polaris Holding Company, Polaris Aircraft Leasing Corporation, Polaris
Investment Management Corporation, Polaris Securities Corporation, Polaris Jet
Leasing, Inc., Polaris Technical Services, Inc., General Electric Company,
General Electric Financial Services, Inc., General Electric Capital Corporation,
General Electric Credit Corporation and DOES 1-100 as defendants. The complaint
alleges violations of state common law, including fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of the rules of the
National Association of Securities Dealers. The complaint seeks to recover
compensatory damages and punitive damages in an unspecified amount, interest,
and recission with respect to Polaris Aircraft Income Funds I-VI. The
Partnership is not named as a defendant in this action.

On or about January 16, 1997, a complaint entitled Enita Elphick, et al. v.
Kidder Peabody & Co.,et al. was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Sacramento, by individual plaintiffs who purchased limited
partnership units in Polaris Aircraft Income Funds I-VI and other limited
partnerships allegedly sold by Kidder Peabody. The complaint names Kidder,
Peabody & Co. Incorporated, KP Realty Advisors, Inc., Polaris Holding Company,
Polaris Aircraft Leasing Corporation, Polaris Investment Management Corporation,
Polaris Securities Corporation, Polaris Jet Leasing, Inc., Polaris Technical
Services, Inc., General Electric Company, General Electric Financial Services,
Inc., General Electric Capital Corporation, General Electric Credit Corporation
and DOES 1-100 as defendants. The complaint alleges violations of state common
law, including fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, and
violations of the rules of the National Association of Securities Dealers. The
complaint seeks to recover compensatory damages and punitive damages in an
unspecified amount, interest, and recission with respect to Polaris Aircraft
Income Funds I-VI and all other limited partnerships alleged to have been sold
by Kidder Peabody to the plaintiffs. The Partnership is not named as a defendant
in this action.

On or about February 14, 1997, a complaint entitled George Zicos, et al. v.
Polaris Holding Company, et al. was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Sacramento, by individual plaintiffs who purchased limited
partnership units in Polaris Aircraft Income Funds I-VI. The complaint names
Polaris Holding Company, Polaris Aircraft Leasing Corporation, Polaris
Investment Management Corporation, Polaris Securities Corporation, Polaris Jet
Leasing, Inc., Polaris Technical Services, Inc., General Electric Company,
General Electric Financial Services, Inc., General Electric Capital Corporation,
General Electric Credit Corporation and DOES 1-100 as defendants. The complaint
alleges violations of state common law, including fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of the rules of the
National Association of Securities Dealers. The complaint seeks to recover
compensatory damages and punitive damages in an unspecified amount, interest,
and recission with respect to Polaris Aircraft Income Funds I-VI. The
Partnership is not named as a defendant in this action.

Other Proceedings - Part I, Item 3 discusses certain other actions arising out
of certain public offerings, including that of the Partnership, to which both
the Partnership and its general partner are parties.

<PAGE>

Disclosure pursuant to Section 16, Item 405 of Regulation S-K:

Based solely on its review of the copies of such forms received or written
representations from certain reporting persons that no Forms 3, 4, or 5 were
required for those persons, the Partnership believes that, during 1996 all
filing requirements applicable to its officers, directors and greater than ten
percent beneficial owners were met.

Item 11. Executive Compensation

PAIF-VI has no directors or officers. PAIF-VI is managed by PIMC, the General
Partner. No management or advisory fees were paid to PIMC in 1996. As described
in Note 5 to the financial statements (Item 8), PIMC received a 5% interest in
all cash distributions of the Partnership during 1996.

Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management

a) No person owns of record, or is known by PAIF-VI to own beneficially
more than five percent of any class of voting securities of PAIF-VI.

b) The General Partner of PAIF-VI owns the equity securities of PAIF-VI
as set forth in the following table:

Title Name of Amount and Nature of Percent
of Class Beneficial Owner Beneficial Ownership of Class
-------- ---------------- -------------------- --------

General Polaris Investment Represents a 10.0% interest 100%
Partner Management of all cash distributions,
Interest Corporation gross income in an amount
equal to 9.09% of distributed
cash available from operations,
and a 1% interest in net
income or loss

c) There are no arrangements known to PAIF-VI, including any pledge by any
person of securities of PAIF-VI, the operation of which may at a
subsequent date result in a change in control of PAIF-VI.

Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions

None.

<PAGE>

PART IV

Item 14. Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules, and Reports on Form 8-K

1. Financial Statements.

The following are included in Part II of this report:
Page No.
--------

Report of Independent Public Accountants 17
Balance Sheets 18
Statements of Operations 19
Statements of Changes in Partners' Capital (Deficit) 20
Statements of Cash Flows 21
Notes to Financial Statements 22

2. Reports on Form 8-K.

None.

3. Exhibits required to be filed by Item 601 of Regulation S-K.

27. Financial Data Schedule.

4. Financial Statement Schedules.

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

<PAGE>

SIGNATURES

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.

POLARIS AIRCRAFT INCOME FUND VI,
A California Limited Partnership
(REGISTRANT)
By: Polaris Investment
Management Corporation
General Partner

March 28, 1997 By: /S/ Eric M. Dull, President
- ------------------- ---------------------------
Date Eric M. Dull, President

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.

Signature Title Date

/S/Eric M. Dull President and Director of Polaris Investment March 28, 1997
- --------------- Management Corporation, General Partner --------------
(Eric M. Dull) of the Registrant

/S/Marc A. Meiches Chief Financial Officer of Polaris Investment March 28, 1997
- ------------------ Management Corporation, General Partner --------------
(Marc A. Meiches) of the Registrant

/S/Richard J. Adams
- ------------------- Chief Financial Officer of Polaris Investment March 28, 1997
(Richard J. Adams) Management Corporation, General Partner --------------
of the Registrant

<ARTICLE>5

<S> <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE> YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END> DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END> DEC-31-1996
<CASH> 3566009
<SECURITIES> 0
<RECEIVABLES> 345597
<ALLOWANCES> 0
<INVENTORY> 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS> 0
<PP&E> 29439200
<DEPRECIATION> 23398981
<TOTAL-ASSETS> 9951825
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES> 0
<BONDS> 0
0
0
<COMMON> 0
<OTHER-SE> 9827231
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY> 9951825
<SALES> 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES> 2092094
<CGS> 0
<TOTAL-COSTS> 0
<OTHER-EXPENSES> 10096842
<LOSS-PROVISION> 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE> 0
<INCOME-PRETAX> (8004748)
<INCOME-TAX> 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING> (8004748)
<DISCONTINUED> 0
<EXTRAORDINARY> 0
<CHANGES> 0
<NET-INCOME> (8004748)
<EPS-PRIMARY> (116.63)
<EPS-DILUTED> 0

</TABLE>