Back to GetFilings.com

Table of Contents

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003

or

For the transition period from                          to                         

Commission file number 0-23656

WELLS REAL ESTATE FUND VI, L. P

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12 (g) of the Act:

CLASS A UNIT

(Title of Class)

CLASS B UNIT

(Title of Class)

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 ¨

Aggregate market value of the voting stock held by non-affiliates:    Not Applicable

Table of Contents

CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

Certain statements contained in this Form 10-K of Wells Real Estate Fund VI, L.P. (the “Partnership”) other than historical facts may be considered forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Such statements include, in particular, statements about our plans, strategies and prospects and are subject to certain risks and uncertainties, as well as known and unknown risks, which could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected or anticipated. Therefore, such statements are not intended to be a guarantee of our performance in future periods. Such forward-looking statements can generally be identified by our use of forward-looking terminology such as “may,” “will,” “expect,” “intend,” “anticipate,” “estimate,” “believe,” “continue,” or other similar words. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date this report is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Neither the Partnership nor the general partners make any representations or warranties (expressed or implied) about the accuracy of any such forward-looking statements. Actual results could differ materially from any forward-looking statements contained in this Form 10-K, and we do not intend to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise.

Any such forward-looking statements are subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors and are based on a number of assumptions involving judgments with respect to, among other things, future economic, competitive and market conditions, all of which are difficult or impossible to predict accurately. To the extent that our assumptions differ from actual results, our ability to meet such forward-looking statements, including our ability to generate positive cash flow from operations; provide distributions to limited partners; and maintain the value of our real estate properties, may be significantly hindered. Following are some of the risks and uncertainties, although not all risks and uncertainties, which could cause actual results to differ materially from those presented in certain forward-looking statements:

General economic risks

Real estate risks

Page 1

Table of Contents

Other operational risks

Page 2

Table of Contents

PART I

General

Wells Real Estate Fund VI, L.P. (the “Partnership”) is a Georgia public limited partnership with Leo F. Wells, III and Wells Partners, L.P. (“Wells Partners”), a Georgia nonpublic limited partnership, serving as its general partners (the “General Partners”). The Partnership was formed on December 1, 1992 for the purpose of acquiring, developing, constructing, owning, operating, improving, leasing, and managing income producing properties for investment purposes. Upon subscription, limited partners elect to have their units treated as Class A Units or Class B Units. The limited partners have the right to change their prior elections to have some or all of their units treated as Class A Units or Class B Units one time every five years and may vote to, among other things, (a) amend the partnership agreement, subject to certain limitations; (b) change the business purpose or investment objectives of the Partnership; and (c) add or remove a general partner. A majority vote on any of the above-described matters will bind the Partnership without the concurrence of the General Partners. Each limited partnership unit has equal voting rights regardless of class.

On April 5, 1993, the Partnership commenced a public offering of its limited partnership units pursuant to a Registration Statement filed on Form S-11 under the Securities Act of 1933. The Partnership commenced active operations upon receiving and accepting subscriptions for 125,000 units on May 17, 1993. The offering was terminated on April 4, 1994 at which time the Partnership had sold approximately 1,933,218 Class A Units and 566,782 Class B Units representing capital contributions of $25,000,000 from investors who were admitted to the Partnership as limited partners.

Management believes that the Partnership would ideally operate through the course of the following five key life cycle phases. The time spent in each phase is dependent upon various economic, industry, market, and other internal/external factors. Some overlap naturally exists in the transition from one phase to the next.

The period during which the Partnership is raising capital through the sale and issuance of limited partner units to the public

The period during which the Partnership invests the capital raised during the fund-raising phase, less upfront fees, into the acquisition of real estate assets

The period during which real estate assets are owned and operated by the Partnership during the initial lease terms of the tenants

The period during which the leases in place at the time of acquisition expire and, thus, the Partnership expends time, effort, and funds to re-lease such space to existing and/or new tenants. Following the holding phase, the Partnership continues to own and operate the real estate assets, evaluate various options for disposition, and market the real estate assets for sale

Page 3

Table of Contents

The period during which the Partnership sells its real estate investments and distributes net sales proceeds to the partners

Management believes that the Partnership is currently straddling the positioning-for-sale phase and the initial stages of the disposition and liquidation phase and, accordingly, is focusing significant resources on locating suitable replacement tenants and negotiating with prospective acquirers of properties owned through affiliated joint ventures.

Cash management is a chief area of focus for the Partnership. Historically, the Partnership has not taken out borrowings from third-party lenders and, while operating cash flows and net property sales proceeds are withheld to provide for known events from time to time, the Partnership does not maintain as a general rule cash reserves for unknown events. Instead, management prefers to maximize operating cash flows distributed to investors commensurate with the period earned; however, it is likely that during the positioning for sale phase, the Partnership will be required to use cash flow from operations and/or net sale proceeds from the sale of the Partnership’s properties, which would otherwise be available for distribution to limited partners, to fund tenant improvements, leasing commissions and other leasing expenses in connection with the re-leasing of the Partnership’s properties. The Partnership’s cash needs evolve during the course of its life cycle and, accordingly, volatility in operating returns is a natural and expected part of the process.

Employees

The Partnership has no direct employees. The employees of Wells Capital, Inc. (“Wells Capital”), the general partner of Wells Partners, and Wells Management Company, Inc. (“Wells Management”), an affiliate of the General Partners, perform a full range of real estate services including leasing and property management, accounting, asset management and investor relations for the Partnership. See Item 11, “Compensation of General Partners and Affiliates,” for a summary of the compensation and fees paid to the General Partners and their affiliates during the year ended December 31, 2003.

Insurance

Wells Management carries comprehensive liability and extended coverage with respect to all of the properties owned by the Partnership through its interests in joint ventures. In the opinion of management, all such properties are adequately insured.

Competition

The Partnership will experience competition for tenants from owners and managers of competing projects, which may include the General Partners and their affiliates. As a result, the Partnership may provide free rent, reduced charges for tenant improvements, and other inducements, all of which may have an adverse impact on results of operations. At the time the Partnership elects to dispose of its properties, the Partnership will also be in competition with sellers of similar properties to locate suitable purchasers for its properties.

Page 4

Table of Contents

The Partnership owns interests in all of its real estate assets through joint ventures with other Wells Real Estate Funds. During the periods presented, the Partnership owned interests in the following nine properties through the affiliated joint ventures listed below (the “Joint Ventures”):

Page 5

Table of Contents

Each of the aforementioned properties was acquired on an all-cash basis. The investment objectives of each of the joint venture partners listed in the above table are substantially identical to those of the Partnership. The Partnership does not have control over the operations of the Joint Ventures; however, it does exercise significant influence. Accordingly, investments in Joint Ventures are recorded using the equity method of accounting.

As of December 31, 2003, the lease expirations scheduled during the following ten years for all properties in which the Partnership owned an interest through the Joint Ventures, assuming no exercise of renewal options or termination rights, are summarized below:

The Joint Ventures and properties in which the Partnership owns an interest during the periods presented are further described below:

Fund I-II-IIOW-VI-VII Associates

Fund I-II-IIOW-VI-VII Associates was formed for the purpose of developing, owning and operating Cherokee Commons, a retail shopping center comprised of approximately 104,000 net rentable square feet located in metropolitan Atlanta, Cherokee County, Georgia. Cherokee Commons was initially acquired and developed through a joint venture between Fund II-IIOW Associates and Wells Real Estate Fund I. On August 1, 1995, the joint venture between Fund II-IIOW Associates and Wells Real Estate Fund I contributed Cherokee Commons, and Wells Real Estate Fund VI, L.P. and Wells Real Estate Fund VII, L.P. contributed approximately $1 million each in order to fund the additional build-out of Cherokee Commons upon the creation of Fund I-II-IIOW-VI-VII Associates.

Page 6

Table of Contents

On October 1, 2001, Fund I-II-IIOW-VI-VII Associates sold Cherokee Commons for net sale proceeds of approximately $8,414,089 and recognized a gain of approximately $1,725,015 on the sale, of which approximately $886,000 and $182,000, respectively, were allocated to the Partnership.

The average effective rental rate per square foot at Cherokee Commons was $7.31 through September 30, 2001, $9.31 for 2000, and $9.11 for 1999.

Fund II-III-VI-VII Associates

On January 10, 1995, Fund II-III-VI-VII Associates was formed for the purpose of developing, owning, and operating the Holcomb Bridge Property. As of December 31, 2003, the Partnership, Fund II-III Associates, and Wells Real Estate Fund VII, L.P. owned approximately 26%, 24%, and 50%, respectively, of the following property based on their respective cumulative capital contributions to Fund II-III-VI-VII Associates:

Holcomb Bridge Property

In January 1995, Fund II-III Associates contributed approximately 4.3 acres of land at the intersection of Warsaw Road and Holcomb Bridge Road in Roswell, Fulton County, Georgia (“the Brookwood Property”), including land improvements, to Fund II-III-VI-VII Associates for the development and construction of two buildings containing a total of approximately 49,500 square feet. Upon construction, this property became known as the Holcomb Bridge Property.

As of December 31, 2003, four tenants occupied approximately 57% of the Holcomb Bridge Property, with two tenants, Bertucci’s Restaurant and American Trust Bancorp, occupying approximately 12% and 26% under leases for approximately 5,935 square feet and 12,786 square feet, respectively. The Bertucci’s Restaurant lease requires annual base rental payments of $127,850 and expires in February 2006. The American Trust Bancorp lease requires annual base rental payments of $140,646 and expires in July 2013. During 2003, occupancy of the Holcomb Bridge Property increased by approximately 23% to 83%. Management is actively seeking replacement tenants for the vacant space at this property.

The average effective annual rental rate per square foot at the Holcomb Bridge Property was $12.92 for 2003, $12.97 for 2002, $17.07 for 2001, $17.55 for 2000, and $19.36 for 1999.

Fund V-VI Associates

On December 27, 1993, Fund V-VI Associates was formed for the purpose of developing, owning, and operating commercial properties. As of December 31, 2003, the Partnership and Wells Real Estate Fund V, L.P. owned interests of approximately 54% and 46%, respectively, in the following properties based on their respective cumulative capital contributions to Fund V-VI Associates:

Stockbridge Village II

On November 12, 1993, Wells Real Estate Fund V, L.P. purchased approximately 2.46 acres of real property located in Clayton County, Stockbridge, Georgia. On July 1, 1994, Wells Real Estate Fund V, L.P. contributed the property as a capital contribution to Fund V-VI Associates. Construction of an approximately 5,400 square feet retail building was completed in November 1994. A second retail building containing approximately 10,400 square feet was completed in June 1995.

100% of the first building (approximately 34% of the premises) is leased to Apple Restaurants, Inc. (“Applebee’s”) for a term of nine years and eleven months, which commenced in September 1994 and will expire in August 2004. The annual base rent under the Applebee’s lease was $125,982 through December 15,

Page 7

Table of Contents

1999, at which time annual base rent increased to $137,700. Management will actively pursue prospective replacement tenants during 2004. The second building is occupied by multiple tenants, none of whom occupy more than 10% of the premises.

Lilly’s LLC/Taco Mac (“Taco Mac”), a restaurant tenant, leases approximately 52% of the second building (approximately 34% of the premises) for a term of five years and three months, which commenced in February 2003 and will expire in April 2008. Under the Taco Mac lease, annual base rent is payable at $92,118 through January 31, 2004; $93,972 from February 1, 2004 through January 31, 2005; $95,827 from February 1, 2005 through January 31, 2006; $97,736 from February 1, 2006 through January 31, 2007; $99,699 from February 1, 2007 through January 31, 2008; and $101,717 thereafter. Tokyo Japanese Steakhouse (“Tokyo”), a restaurant tenant, leases the remainder of the second building (approximately 32% of the premises) for a term of nine years and eleven months, which commenced in February 1997 and will expire in December 2006. Under the Tokyo lease, annual base rent is payable at $91,926 through January 31, 2004; $94,411 from February 1, 2004 through January 31, 2005; $96,896 from February 1, 2005 through January 31, 2006; and $99,380 thereafter.

The average effective annual rental rate per square foot at Stockbridge Village II was $19.56 for 2003, $18.91 for 2002, $17.23 for 2001, $19.70 for 2000, and $19.66 for 1999.

Hartford Building

On December 29, 1993, Fund V-VI Associates purchased the Hartford Building, a four-story office building containing approximately 71,000 rentable square feet, from Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company. The Hartford Building is located on approximately 5.56 acres of land located in Southington, Hartford County, Connecticut.

On August 12, 2003, Fund V-VI Associates sold the Hartford Building to an unrelated third party for a gross sales price of $8,925,000, less agreed-upon credits of $457,500. As a result of this sale, net proceeds of approximately $4,400,000 and gain of approximately $1,400,000 were allocated to the Partnership.

The average effective annual rental rate per square foot at the Hartford Building was $7.32 through August 12, 2003, $10.16 for the year ended December 31, 2002, and $10.11 for the years ended December 31, 2001, 2000, and 1999.

Fund V-VI-VII Associates

On September 8, 1994, Fund V-VI-VII Associates was formed for the purpose of owning and operating the Marathon Building. As of December 31, 2003, the Partnership, Wells Real Estate Fund V, L.P., and Wells Real Estate Fund VII, L.P. owned approximately 42%, 16%, and 42%, respectively, of the following property based on their respective cumulative capital contributions to Fund V-VI-VII Associates:

Marathon Building

On September 16, 1994, Fund V-VI-VII Associates purchased the Marathon Building, a three-story office building comprised of approximately 76,000 rentable square feet located on approximately 6.2 acres of land in Appleton, Wisconsin.

100% of the Marathon Building was under a lease with Jaakko Pyry Flour Daniel (“Jaakko”) through December 31, 2003. Effective January 2004, Jaakko entered into a seven-year lease for approximately 44,000 square feet (or 58% of the building), and Virchow Krause entered into a ten-year lease for approximately 27,000 square feet (or 35% of the building). In connection with negotiating these leases, Fund V-VI-VII Associates will absorb free rent under the Jaakko lease and Virchow Krause lease through August 2004 and January 2005, respectively. After the respective free rent periods, Jaacko and Virchow Krause will be obligated to pay base monthly rent of approximately $45,700 and $24,000, respectively.

Page 8

Table of Contents

The average effective annual rental rate per square foot at the Marathon Building was $12.77 for 2003, $12.79 for 2002 and $12.78 for 2001, 2000, and 1999.

Fund VI-VII Associates

On December 9, 1994, Fund VI-VII Associates was formed for the purpose of developing, owning, and operating commercial properties. As of December 31, 2003, the Partnership and Wells Real Estate Fund VII, L.P. owned interests of approximately 45% and 55%, respectively, in the following properties based on their respective cumulative capital contributions to Fund VI-VII Associates:

Stockbridge Village III

In April 1994, the Partnership purchased 3.27 acres of real property located in Clayton County and Henry County, Georgia for a cost of $1,015,673. On December 9, 1994, the Partnership contributed this property to Fund VI-VII Associates.

Fund VI-VII Associates developed this property into two multi-use buildings. The first building includes a 3,200-square -foot restaurant, the development of which was completed in March 1995 and is currently leased to RMS/Fazoli’s for a period of thirteen years, commencing on December 10, 1998. The second building includes an approximately 15,000-square-foot outparcel building, the development of which was completed in October 1995. In October 2001, Stockbridge Ribs, Inc. took occupancy of 6,732 square feet with a lease for ten years. Four other tenants occupy the approximate remaining 6,500 square feet of this building.

The average effective annual rental rate per square foot at Stockbridge Village III was $18.35 for 2003, $18.35 for 2002, $14.99 for 2001, $17.05 for 2000, and $17.08 for 1999.

Stockbridge Village I Expansion

On June 7, 1995, Fund VI-VII Associates purchased 3.38 acres of real property located in Clayton County and Henry County, Stockbridge, Georgia for $718,000. Stockbridge Village I Expansion consists of a multi-tenant shopping center comprised of approximately 29,200 square feet. Construction was substantially complete in April 1996, as Cici’s Pizza took occupancy of approximately 4,000 square feet. The term of the Cici’s Pizza lease is nine years and eleven months and commenced upon occupancy.

The average effective annual rental rate per square foot at Stockbridge Village I Expansion was $14.05 for 2003, $13.65 for 2002, $13.87 for 2001, $11.97 for 2000, and $10.74 for 1999.

Fund VI-VII-VIII Associates

On April 17, 1995, Fund VI-VII-VIII Associates was formed for the purpose of developing, owning, and operating commercial properties. As of December 31, 2003, the Partnership, Wells Real Estate Fund VII, L.P., and Wells Real Estate Fund VIII, L.P. owned approximately 34%, 33%, and 32%, respectively, of the following two properties based on their respective cumulative capital contributions to Fund VI-VII-VIII Associates:

BellSouth Building

On April 25, 1995, Fund VI-VII-VIII Associates purchased a 5.55-acre parcel of land in Jacksonville, Florida for the purpose of developing an office building. Upon completing the construction of an approximately 92,000-square-foot office building in May 1996, BellSouth Advertising and Publishing Corporation (“BellSouth”), a subsidiary of BellSouth Company, took occupancy of approximately 66,000 square feet and American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. (“American Express”) took occupancy of approximately 23,000 square feet. BellSouth took occupancy of an additional approximate 3,000 square feet in December 1996.

Page 9

Table of Contents

The BellSouth lease is for a term of nine years and eleven months with an option to extend for an additional five-year period at the currently prevailing market rate. The annual base rent payable during the initial term is $1,094,426 for the first five years and $1,202,034 for the balance of the initial lease term. The original American Express lease was for a term of five years with an annual base rent of $369,851 and expired in June 2001. American Express renewed its lease for five years at an annual base rent of $405,117 for the first year, with a cumulative three percent escalation each year thereafter. BellSouth and American Express are required to pay additional rent equal to their share of operating expenses during their respective lease terms.

The average effective annual rental rate per square foot at the BellSouth Building was $17.14 for 2003, $16.99 for 2002, $16.65 for 2001, and $16.36 for 2000 and 1999.

Tanglewood Commons

On May 31, 1995, Fund VI-VII-VIII Associates purchased a 14.683-acre tract of real property located in Clemmons, Forsyth County, North Carolina. Fund VI-VII-VIII Associates constructed a strip-mall shopping center building containing approximately 67,320 gross square feet on a 12.48-acre tract of land. The remaining 2.2-acre portion of the property consists of four outparcels which have been graded and held for future development or resale.

In February 1997, Harris Teeter, Inc. (“Harris Teeter”), a regional supermarket chain, executed a lease for a minimum of approximately 45,000 square feet with an initial term of twenty years with extension options of four successive five-year periods with the same terms as the initial lease. The annual base rent during the initial term is $488,250. In addition, Harris Teeter has agreed to pay percentage rents equal to one percent of the amount by which Harris Teeter’s gross sales exceed $35,000,000 for any lease year.

On October 7, 2002, Fund VI-VII-VIII Associates sold an outparcel of land at Tanglewood Commons to an unrelated third party for a gross sales price of $558,570. As a result of this sale, a gain of approximately $4,500 and net proceeds of $180,000 were attributable to the Partnership.

The average effective annual rental rate per square foot at Tanglewood Commons was $12.90 for 2003, $12.85 for 2002, $13.02 for 2001, $12.53 for 2000, and $11.48 for 1999.

PROXY TO LIQUIDATE

Under Section 20.2 of the partnership agreement, limited partners holding 10% or more of the outstanding units have the right, at any time commencing eight years after the termination of the Partnership’s offering of units (or commencing April 4, 2002), to provide a written request to the General Partners directing the General Partners to formally proxy the limited partners to determine whether the assets of the Partnership should be liquidated.

There were no material pending legal proceedings or proceedings known to be contemplated by governmental authorities involving the Partnership during the fourth quarter of 2003.

No matters were submitted to a vote of the limited partners during the fourth quarter of 2003.

Page 10

Table of Contents

PART II

As of February 15, 2004, the Partnership had 2,293,127 outstanding Class A Units held by a total of 1,649 limited partners and 206,873 outstanding Class B Units held by a total of 186 limited partners. The capital contribution per unit is $10.00. There is no established public trading market for the Partnership’s limited partnership units, and it is not anticipated that a public trading market for the units will develop. Under the partnership agreement, the General Partners have the right to prohibit transfers of units.

Because fiduciaries of retirement plans subject to ERISA are required to determine the value of the assets of such retirement plans on an annual basis, the General Partners are required under the partnership agreement to report estimated unit values to the limited partners each year in the Partnership’s annual Form 10-K. The methodology to be utilized for determining such estimated unit values under the partnership agreement requires the General Partners to estimate the amount a unit holder would receive if the Partnership’s properties were sold at their estimated fair market values as of the end of the Partnership’s fiscal year and the proceeds therefrom (without reduction for selling expenses) were distributed to the limited partners in liquidation of the Partnership. Utilizing this methodology, the General Partners have estimated unit valuations, based upon their estimates of property values during the period presented, to be approximately $8.93 per Class A Unit and $8.93 per Class B Unit, based upon market conditions existing in early December 2003. In connection with the estimated property valuations, the General Partners obtained an opinion from David L. Beal Company, an independent MAI appraiser, to the effect that such estimates of value were deemed reasonable and were prepared in accordance with appropriate methods for valuing real estate; however, due to the inordinate expense involved in obtaining appraisals for all of the Partnership’s properties, no actual appraisals were obtained. Accordingly, these estimates should not be viewed as an accurate reflection of the values of the limited partners’ units, what a limited partner might be able to sell his units for, or the fair market value of the Partnership’s properties, nor do they represent the amount of net proceeds limited partners would receive if the Partnership’s properties were sold and the proceeds distributed in a liquidation of the Partnership. The valuations performed by the General Partners are estimates only, and are based on a number of assumptions which may not be accurate or complete. For example, these estimated valuations assumed, and are applicable only to, limited partners who purchased their units in the Partnership’s original offering and have made no conversion elections under the partnership agreement. In addition, property values are subject to change and could decline in the future. Further, as set forth above, no appraisals have or will be obtained. For these reasons, the estimated unit valuations set forth above should not be used by or relied upon by investors, other than fiduciaries of retirement plans for limited ERISA reporting purposes, as any indication of the fair market value of their units.

Net proceeds available for distribution upon the sale of the Partnership’s properties are initially distributed equally to limited partners holding Class A Units and Class B Units on a per-unit basis until they receive a return of their initial capital contributions. See Note 1 to the financial statements included in this report for a more detailed description of the methodology for distributing net sale proceeds from the sale of the Partnership’s properties to the limited partners.

Cash available for distribution to the limited partners is distributed on a quarterly basis. Under the partnership agreement, distributions from net cash from operations are allocated first to the limited partners holding Class A Units (and limited partners holding Class B Units that have elected a conversion right that allows them to share in the distribution rights of limited partners holding Class A Units) until they have received 10% of their adjusted capital contributions. Net Cash From Operations, as defined in the partnership agreement to mean cash flow, less

Page 11

Table of Contents

adequate cash reserves for other obligations of the Partnership for which there is no provision, but are initially allocated none of the depreciation, amortization, cost recovery and interest expense. These items are allocated to Class B Unit holders until their capital account balances have been reduced to zero. Cash available for distribution is then distributed to the General Partners until they have received an amount equal to 10% of cash distributions previously distributed to the limited partners. Any remaining cash available for distribution is split between the limited partners holding Class A Units and the General Partners on a basis of 90% and 10%, respectively. No distributions will be made to the limited partners holding Class B Units. No distributions have been made to the General Partner or holders of Class B Units as of December 31, 2003.

Cash distributions made to limited partners holding Class A Units (and limited partners holding Class B Units that have elected a conversion right) during 2002 and 2003 were as follows:

Fourth quarter 2003 distributions were accrued for accounting purposes in 2003 and paid to the Class A limited partners in February 2004. No cash distributions were paid to holders of Class B Units in 2003 or 2002.

The following sets forth a summary of the selected financial data as of and for the years ended December 31, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, and 1999.

Page 12

Table of Contents

The following discussion and analysis should be read in conjunction with the Selected Financial Data presented in Item 6 and our accompanying financial statements and notes thereto.

Currently, management believes that the Partnership straddles the positioning for sale phase and the initial stages of the disposition and liquidation phase. Upon investing all capital proceeds and exiting the investing phase, the Partnership owned interests in nine properties through interests in affiliated joint ventures. As of the date of this filing, three properties are substantially leased, three properties are under contract to be sold, one property was sold in 2001, a single outparcel of one property was sold in 2002, and one property was sold in 2003.

As the Partnership evolves through the life cycle detailed in Item 1, our most significant risks and challenges continue to evolve concurrently. During the positioning-for-sale phase, we will continue to focus on re-leasing vacant space and space that may become vacant upon the expiration of our current leases. In doing so, we seek to maximize returns to the limited partners by negotiating long-term leases at market rental rates while attempting to minimize downtime, re-leasing expenditures, ongoing property level costs and portfolio costs. As we embark further into the disposition and liquidation phase, our attention will shift to locating suitable acquirers, negotiating purchase and sale contracts that will attempt to maximize the total return to the limited partners, and minimize contingencies and our post-closing involvement with the acquirer.

During 2003, net income increased primarily due to a reduction in depreciation expense recognized for Stockbridge Village I Expansion, Stockbridge Village II, and Stockbridge Village III, as these properties were classified as held for sale effective March 18, 2003 and recognizing a gain on the sale of the Hartford Building in August 2003. Cash flows increased during 2003, primarily due to incurring additional nonrecurring partnership administration and general and administrative costs and funding the Partnership’s pro rata portion of tenant improvement for the Holcomb Bridge Property in 2002.

During 2004, the Partnership anticipates transitioning from the positioning-for sale-phase to the disposition and liquidation phase. Substantially all of our revenues are generated from the operations of the properties in the Partnership’s portfolio. On a quarterly basis, we deduct the expenses related to the recurring operations of the properties and the portfolio from such revenues and assess the amount of the remaining cash flows that will be required to fund known re-leasing costs and other capital improvements. Any residual operating cash flows are considered available for distribution to the limited partners and are generally paid quarterly. As further outlined in Item 1, we anticipate future operating cash flows to decline as the Partnership completes the positioning-for-sale phase and enters into the disposition and liquidation phase.

Industry Factors

Our results continue to be impacted by a number of factors influencing the real estate industry.

General Economic and Real Estate Market Commentary

The U.S. economy appears to be recovering; however, thus far it has been a jobless recovery, and because of this, real estate office fundamentals may not improve until employment growth strengthens. The economy has shown signs of growth recently, as companies have recommenced making investments in new employees. Job growth is the most significant demand driver for office markets. The jobless recovery has

Page 13

Table of Contents

resulted in a demand deficit for office space. In general, the real estate office market lags behind the overall economic recovery and, therefore, recovery is not expected until late 2004 or 2005 at the earliest, and then will vary by market.

Overall, real estate market fundamentals are weak; however, capital continues to flow into the asset class. This increased capital drives the prices of many properties upward and investor returns downward. There is a significant pricing differential in underwriting parameters between well-leased assets with credit tenants and those with either existing vacancies or substantial near-term tenant rollover. Properties with long-term leases to strong credit tenants have seen an increase in value.

The office market has significant excess space. Vacancy levels are believed to be at or near their peak. There is some encouraging news, new construction continues to taper off, coming to a complete halt in many markets. As a result of the slow down in new construction and the modest decline in sublease space, net absorption has turned positive, although barely, at year-end. Many industry professionals believe office market fundamentals are bottoming-out; however, a recovery cannot be expected until job growth and corresponding demand for office space increases.

Wells Real Estate Funds with Current Vacancy or Near-term Rollover Exposure

Real estate funds, such as the Partnership, that contain properties with current vacancies or near-term tenant rollover may face a challenging leasing environment. The properties within these funds will face lower rents and higher concession packages to the tenants in order to re-lease vacant space.

From a valuation standpoint, it is generally preferable to either renew an existing tenant lease or re-lease the property prior to marketing it for sale. Generally, buyers will heavily discount their offering price to compensate for the existing or pending vacancies.

Gross Revenues

Gross revenues of the Partnership were $2,596,175, $1,052,276, and $1,281,251, for the years ended December 31, 2003, 2002, and 2001, respectively. The 2003 increase from 2002, and the 2002 decrease from 2001, resulted primarily from the corresponding changes in equity in income of Joint Ventures, as further described below, and additional interest income earned during 2003 on net proceeds from the 2001 sale of Cherokee Commons and the 2002 sale of an outparcel at Tanglewood Commons.

Equity In Income (Loss) of Joint Ventures – Continuing Operations

Gross Revenues of Joint Ventures

Gross revenues of the Joint Ventures decreased in 2003, as compared to 2002, primarily due to a decline in interest income earned on net proceeds from the sale of Cherokee Commons, which were distributed to the joint venture partners in the fourth quarter of 2002 upon the dissolution of Fund I-II-IOW-VI-VII Associates. Gross revenues decreased in 2002, as compared to 2001, primarily due to reduced operating revenues related to the sale of Cherokee Commons in October 2001, and a decrease in average occupancy of the Holcomb Bridge Property during 2002.

Expenses of Joint Ventures

The expenses of the Joint Ventures decreased in 2003, as compared to 2002, primarily due to nonrecurring HVAC repairs incurred for the BellSouth Building during 2002. Expenses decreased in 2002, as compared

Page 14

Table of Contents

to 2001, primarily due to the recovery of previously uncollectible receivables from tenants at the Holcomb Bridge Property in 2002, which were written off in 2001, and a decrease in the write-off of uncollectible receivables due from tenants at Tanglewood Commons in 2002, as compared to 2001.

Equity In Income of Joint Ventures – Discontinued Operations

Equity in income of the Joint Ventures increased in 2003, as compared to 2002, largely due to the gain recognized from the sale of the Hartford Building by Fund V-VI Associates in August 2003, and a decline in depreciation expense for Stockbridge Village II, Stockbridge Village I Expansion, and Stockbridge Village III, as these properties were classified as held for sale effective March 18, 2003. Equity in income of Joint Ventures decreased from 2002, as compared to 2001, primarily due to the gain recognized from the sale of Cherokee Commons by Fund I-II-IIOW-VI-VII Associates in October 2001.

As a result of the aforementioned factors, equity in income of Joint Ventures was $2,578,809, $1,049,650, and $1,280,565 for the years ended December 31, 2003, 2002, and 2001, respectively.

Expenses of the Partnership

Expenses of the Partnership were $107,837, $146,954, and $90,254 for the years ended December 31, 2003, 2002, and 2001, respectively. The decrease in 2003, as compared to 2002, resulted primarily from declines in legal and accounting fees and other general and administrative expenses related to the liquidation of Fund I-II-IIOW-VI-VII Associates in 2002 and the sale of the outparcel of land at Tanglewood Commons in 2002. Such expenses increased in 2002, as compared to 2001, primarily due to increased partnership administration expenses, legal and accounting fees, and other general and administrative costs related to changing independent public accountants in 2002.

Net Income of the Partnership

As a result of the aforementioned factors, net income of the Partnership was $2,488,338, $905,322, and $1,190,997, for the years ended December 31, 2003, 2002, and 2001, respectively.

Cash Flows From Operating Activities

Net cash flows from operating activities were $(110,202), $(119,485), and $(87,744) for the years ended December 31, 2003, 2002, and 2001, respectively. The 2003 decrease in cash flows used, as compared to 2002, and the 2002 increase in cash flows used, as compared to 2001, resulted primarily from the fluctuations in expenses of the Partnership as described above.

Cash Flows From Investing Activities

Net cash flows from investing activities were $5,871,502, $2,826,422, and $1,986,277 for the years ended December 31, 2003, 2002, and 2001, respectively. Cash flows from investing activities increased in 2003, as compared to 2002, primarily due to the receipt of net proceeds from Fund VI-VII-VIII Associates in January 2003 for the October 2002 sale of an outparcel of land at Tanglewood Commons and Fund V-VI Associates in September 2003 for the August 2003 sale of the Hartford Building, partially offset by a decline in operating distributions received from Fund II-III-VI-VII Associates in order to fund re-leasing and tenant improvements costs for the Holcomb Bridge Property during the third quarter of 2003. Cash flows from investing activities increased in 2002, as compared to 2001, largely due to the receipt of net proceeds from Fund I-II-IIOW-VI-VII Associates in 2002 for the October 2001 sale of Cherokee Commons.

Page 15

Table of Contents

Cash Flows From Financing Activities

Net cash flows from financing activities were $(1,225,109), $(1,808,066), and $(1,899,493) for the years ended December 31, 2003, 2002, and 2001, respectively. Cash flows from financing activities is solely comprised of operating distributions to limited partners. The decrease in cash flows used in financing activities for 2003, as compared to 2002, resulted primarily from funding nonrecurring HVAC repair costs for the Hartford Building in 2003, and reduced cash flows resulting from the sale of the Hartford Building in August 2003. The decrease in cash flows used in financing activities for 2002, as compared to 2001, resulted primarily from reduced operating cash flows resulting from the sale of Cherokee Commons in October 2001, and a decline in the average occupancy of the Holcomb Bridge Property during 2002.

Distributions

The Partnership made distributions to the limited partners holding Class A Units of $0.59 per unit, $0.71 per unit, and $0.85 per unit for the years ended December 31, 2003, 2002, and 2001, respectively. Such distributions have been made from net cash from operations and distributions received from investments in Joint Ventures. No distributions have been made to the limited partners holding Class B Units or to the General Partners.

The General Partners anticipate that future operating cash distributions to the limited partners holding Class A Units may decline in the near term as the Partnership absorbs its pro rata portion of rent abatements through July 2004 and December 2004 for the re-leasing of approximately 58% and 35%, respectively, of the Marathon Building and funds its pro rata portion of tenant improvements thereto.

Sales Proceeds

The sales of the Cherokee Commons Property, an outparcel of land at Tanglewood Commons and the Hartford Building generated total net sales proceeds of approximately $5,432,085, which is attributable to the Partnership. Upon evaluating the capital needs of the existing properties in which the Partnership holds an interest, the General Partners determined that reserves of approximately $201,085 will be required to fund costs associated with increasing the occupancy of the Holcomb Bridge Property and to pursue the potential expansion of Tanglewood Commons. Thus, in accordance with the terms of the partnership agreement, the General Partners distributed the residual net sales proceeds in January 23, 2004 of approximately $5,231,000 to the limited partners of record as of December 31, 2003, which under the partnership agreement does not include limited partners who acquired units after September 30, 2003.

Capital Resources

The Partnership is an investment vehicle formed for the purpose of acquiring, owning, and operating income-producing real properties and has invested all of its funds available for investment. Accordingly, it is unlikely that the Partnership will acquire interests in any additional properties. In 2004, the General Partners anticipate funding capital expenditures for tenant improvements at the Marathon Building as mentioned above.

On March 18, 2003, four Wells affiliated Joint Ventures (collectively, the “Seller,” defined below) entered into an agreement (the “Agreement”) to sell five real properties (the “Sale Properties,” defined below) located in Stockbridge, Georgia to an unrelated third party (the “Purchaser”) for a gross sale price of $23,750,000. Contemporaneously with the Purchaser’s execution and delivery of the Agreement to the Seller, the Purchaser

Page 16

Table of Contents

paid an earnest money deposit of $250,000 to the designated escrow agent. The extended due diligence period expired March 8, 2004. The sale is expected to close during the month of April 2004.

Management and Leasing Fees

Wells Management, an affiliate of the General Partners, receives compensation for supervising the management and leasing of the Partnership’s properties owned through Joint Ventures equal to (a) 3% of the gross revenues for management and 3% of the gross revenues for leasing (aggregate maximum of 6%) plus a separate fee for the one-time lease-up of newly constructed properties in an amount not to exceed the fee customarily charged in arm’s-length transactions by others rendering similar services in the same geographic area for similar properties or (b) in the case of commercial properties which are leased on a long-term net basis (ten or more years), 1% of the gross revenues except for initial leasing fees equal to 3% of the gross revenues over the first five years of the lease term. The Partnership’s share of management and leasing fees and lease acquisition costs incurred though the Joint Ventures was $125,472, $136,198, and $156,226, for the years ended 2003, 2002, and 2001, respectively.

Administration Reimbursements

Wells Capital and its affiliates perform certain administrative services for the Partnership, such as accounting and other administrative services, and incurs the related expenses. Such expenses are allocated among the various Wells Real Estate Funds based on time spent on each fund by individual administrative personnel. During 2003, 2002, and 2001, the Partnership reimbursed $43,589, $45,085, and $38,184, respectively, to Wells Capital and its affiliates for these services. See Note 6 to the financial statements included with this report for a summary of the Partnership’s administrative costs.

Conflicts of Interest

The General Partners are also general partners of other Wells Real Estate Funds. As such, there may exist conflicts of interest where the General Partners in their capacity as general partners of other Wells Real Estate Funds may be in competition with the Partnership for tenants in similar geographic markets.

Page 17

Table of Contents

The real estate market has not been affected significantly by inflation in the past three years due to the relatively low inflation rate. However, there are provisions in the majority of tenant leases, which would protect the Partnership from the impact of inflation. These provisions include reimbursement billings for operating expense pass-through charges, real estate tax and insurance reimbursements on a per-square-foot basis, or in some cases, annual reimbursement of operating expenses above a certain per-square-foot allowance. However, due to the long-term nature of the leases, the leases may not reset frequently enough to cover inflation.

The Partnership’s accounting policies have been established to conform with GAAP. The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to use judgment in the application of accounting policies, including making estimates and assumptions. These judgments affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the dates of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenue and expenses during the reporting periods. If management’s judgment or interpretation of the facts and circumstances relating to various transactions had been different, it is possible that different accounting policies would have been applied, thus, resulting in a different presentation of the financial statements. Additionally, other companies may utilize different estimates that may impact comparability of the Partnership’s results of operations to those of companies in similar businesses.

Below is a discussion of the accounting policies that management considers to be critical in that they may require complex judgment in their application or require estimates about matters that are inherently uncertain. Additional discussion of accounting policies that management considers to be significant, including further discussion of the critical accounting policies described below, is presented in Note 1 to the Partnership’s financial statements included in this report.

Investment in Real Estate Assets

The Partnership’s management is required to make subjective assessments as to the useful lives of its depreciable assets. The Partnership considers the period of future benefit of the asset to determine the appropriate useful lives. These assessments have a direct impact on net income. The estimated useful lives of the Partnership’s assets by class are as follows:

In the event that management uses inappropriate useful lives or methods for depreciation, the Partnership’s net income would be misstated.

Valuation of Real Estate Assets

Management continually monitors events and changes in circumstances that could indicate that the carrying amounts of the real estate assets in which the Partnership has an ownership interest, either directly or through investments in Joint Ventures, may not be recoverable. When indicators of potential impairment are present which indicate that the carrying amounts of real estate assets may not be recoverable, management assesses the

Page 18

Table of Contents

recoverability of the real estate assets by determining whether the carrying value of the real estate assets will be recovered through the undiscounted future operating cash flows expected from the use of the asset and its eventual disposition. In the event that such expected undiscounted future cash flows do not exceed the carrying value, management adjusts the real estate assets to the fair value and recognizes an impairment loss. Management has determined that there has been no impairment in the carrying value of real estate assets held by the Partnership at December 31, 2003.

Projections of expected future cash flows require management to estimate future market rental income amounts subsequent to the expiration of current lease agreements, property operating expenses, discount rates, the number of months it takes to re-lease the property, and the number of years the property is held for investment. The use of inappropriate assumptions in the future cash flow analysis would result in an incorrect assessment of the property’s future cash flows and fair value, and could result in the overstatement of the carrying value of real estate assets held by the Joint Ventures and net income of the Partnership.

As further described in section (c) above, on January 23, 2004, the General Partners distributed total net proceeds from the sales of the Cherokee Commons Property, an outparcel of land at Tanglewood Commons, and the Hartford Building of $5,231,000 to the limited partners of record as of December 31, 2003, which under the partnership agreement does not include limited partners acquiring their units after September 30, 2003.

On March 19, 2004, Leo F. Wells, III, one of the General Partners, Wells Capital, the corporate general partner of the other General Partner, as well as Wells Investment Securities, Inc., the dealer manager, Wells Management Company, Inc., the property manager, and Wells Real Estate Fund I (“Wells Defendants”) received notice of a putative class action complaint, which was filed in the Superior Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia on March 12, 2004 (Civil Action File No. 04-A-2791  2). The complaint was filed by James Hendry, Karen Beneda, Robert Beneda, and William Mullin, as plaintiffs, purportedly on behalf of all limited partners holding Class B units of Wells Real Estate Fund I (“Wells Fund”) as of January 15, 2003. The complaint alleges, among other things, that (1) Mr. Wells, Wells Capital, Wells Investment Securities, Inc. and Wells Fund I negligently and/or fraudulently made false statements and/or made material omissions in connection with the initial sale of the Class B units to investors of Wells Fund I by making false statements or omissions in the Wells Fund I sales literature relating to the distribution of net sale proceeds to holders of Class B units; (2) Mr. Wells, Wells Capital and Wells Fund I negligently and/or fraudulently misrepresented and/or concealed disclosure of, among other things, alleged discrepancies between such statements and the allocations in the partnership agreement for a period of time in order to raise money for future syndications and to delay such investors from taking any legal, equitable or other action to protect their investments in Wells Fund I; and (3) Mr. Wells, Wells Capital and Wells Fund I breached their fiduciary duties to the limited partners. The plaintiffs seek, among other remedies, the following: rescission of all class members’ purchases of Class B units and an order for a full refund of all money paid for such units together with interest; judgment against the Wells Defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount to be proven at trial; punitive damages; judicial dissolution of Wells Fund I and the appointment of a receiver to wind up and terminate the partnership; and an award to plaintiffs of their attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses. It is too early to predict what impact, if any, this matter may have on the General Partners of the Partnership.

Since the Partnership does not borrow any money or make any foreign investments, it is not subject to risks relating to interest rate or foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations.

Page 19

Table of Contents

The financial statements of the Registrant and supplementary data are detailed under Item 15 (a) and filed as part of the report on the pages indicated.

There were no disagreements with the Partnership’s independent public accountants during the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002.

On May 16, 2002, the General Partners dismissed Arthur Andersen LLP (Andersen) as the Partnership’s independent public accountants effective immediately.

Andersen’s report on the financial statements of the Partnership for the year ended December 31, 2001 did not contain an adverse opinion or disclaimer of opinion, nor were they qualified or modified as to uncertainty, audit scope, or accounting principles.

During the year ended December 31, 2001 and through the date of Andersen’s dismissal, there were no disagreements with Andersen on any matter of accounting principle or practice, financial statement disclosure, or auditing scope or procedure which, if not resolved to Andersen’s satisfaction, would have caused Andersen to make reference to the subject matter in connection with its report on the financial statements of the Partnership for such year and there were no reportable events as set forth in Item 304(a)(1)(v) of Regulation S-K.

On July 3, 2002, the Partnership engaged Ernst & Young, LLP (Ernst & Young) to audit the financial statements of the Partnership, effective immediately. During the fiscal year ended December 31, 2001, and through the date of appointment of Ernst & Young as the Partnership’s independent public accountants, the Partnership did not consult Ernst & Young with respect to the application of accounting principles to a specified transaction, either completed or proposed, or the type of audit opinion that might be rendered on the financial statements of the Partnership, or any other matters or reportable events as set forth in Items 304(a)(2)(i) and (ii) of Regulation S-K.

The Partnership carried out an evaluation, under the supervision and with the participation of management of Wells Capital, the general partner of one of the General Partners of the Partnership, including the Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer, of the effectiveness of the design and operation of the Partnership’s disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Based upon that evaluation, the Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer concluded that the Partnership’s disclosure controls and procedures were effective.

There were no significant changes in the Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting during the Partnership’s fourth fiscal quarter that have materially affected, or are likely to materially affect, the Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting.

Page 20

Table of Contents

PART III

Wells Partners

The sole general partner of Wells Partners is Wells Capital, a Georgia corporation. The executive offices of Wells Capital are located at 6200 The Corners Parkway, Norcross, Georgia 30092. Wells Capital was organized on April 18, 1984 under the Georgia Business Corporation Code, and is primarily in the business of serving as general partner or as an affiliate to the general partner in affiliated public limited partnerships (“Wells Real Estate Funds”) and as the advisor to the Wells Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. and Wells Real Estate Investment Trust II, Inc. (“Wells REITs”), each a Maryland corporation which qualifies as a real estate investment trust. In these capacities, Wells Capital performs certain services for the Wells Real Estate Funds and the Wells REITs, including presenting, structuring, and acquiring real estate investment opportunities, entering into leases and service contracts on acquired properties, arranging for and completing the disposition of properties, and providing other services such as accounting and administrative functions. Wells Capital is a wholly owned subsidiary of Wells Real Estate Funds, Inc., of which Leo F. Wells, III is the sole stockholder.

Leo F. Wells, III

Mr. Wells, who serves as one of our General Partners, is the President, Treasurer, and sole director of Wells Capital, which is the corporate general partner of our other General Partner. He is also the sole stockholder, President, and sole director of Wells Real Estate Funds, Inc., the parent corporation of Wells Capital, Wells Management, Wells Investment Securities, Inc. (“Wells Investment Securities”), and Wells & Associates, Inc., a real estate brokerage and investment company formed in 1976 and incorporated in 1978, for which Mr. Wells serves as principal broker. He is also the President, Treasurer, and sole director of:

Mr. Wells is the President and a director of Wells Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. and Wells Real Estate Investment Trust II, Inc., which are both real estate investment trusts formed under Maryland law.

Mr. Wells was a real estate salesman and property manager from 1970 to 1973 for Roy D. Warren & Company, an Atlanta-based real estate company, and he was associated from 1973 to 1976 with Sax Gaskin Real Estate Company. From 1980 to February 1985 he served as Vice President of Hill-Johnson, Inc., a Georgia corporation engaged in the construction business. Mr. Wells holds a Bachelor of Business Administration degree in economics from the University of Georgia. Mr. Wells is a member of the Financial Planning Associations (FPA).

On August 26, 2003, Mr. Wells and Wells Investment Securities entered into a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent (AWC) with the NASD relating to alleged rule violations. The AWC set forth the NASD’s findings that Wells Investment Securities and Mr. Wells had violated conduct rules relating to the provision of non-cash compensation of more than $100 to associated persons of NASD member firms in connection with their attendance at the annual educational and due diligence conferences sponsored by Wells Investment Securities in 2001 and 2002. Without admitting or denying the allegations and findings against them, Wells Investment

Page 21

Table of Contents

Securities and Mr. Wells consented in the AWC to various findings by the NASD which are summarized in the following paragraph:

In 2001 and 2002, Wells Investment Securities sponsored conferences attended by registered representatives who sold its real estate investment products. Wells Investment Securities also paid for certain expenses of guests of the registered representatives who attended the conferences. In 2001, Wells Investment Securities paid the costs of travel to the conference and meals for many of the guests, and paid the costs of playing golf for some of the registered representatives and their guests. Wells Investment Securities later invoiced registered representatives for the cost of golf and for travel expenses of guests, but was not fully reimbursed for such. In 2002, Wells Investment Securities paid for meals for the guests. Wells Investment Securities also conditioned most of the 2001 conference invitations on attainment by the registered representatives of a predetermined sales goal for Wells Investment Securities products. This conduct violated the prohibitions against payment and receipt of non-cash compensation in connection with the sales of these products contained in NASD’s Conduct Rules 2710, 2810, and 3060. In addition, Wells Investment Securities and Mr. Wells failed to adhere to all of the terms of their written undertaking made in March 2001 not to engage in the conduct described above, and thereby engaged in conduct that was inconsistent with high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade in violation of NASD Conduct Rule 2110.

Wells Investment Securities consented to a censure and Mr. Wells consented to suspension from acting in a principal capacity with an NASD member firm for one year. Wells Investment Securities and Mr. Wells also agreed to the imposition of a joint and several fine in the amount of $150,000. Although he is temporarily prohibited from acting in a principal capacity with Wells Investment Securities, Mr. Wells continues to engage in selling efforts and other non-principal activities on behalf of Wells Investment Securities.

Financial Oversight Committee

The Partnership does not have a board of directors or an audit committee. Accordingly, as the corporate general partner of one of the General Partners of the Partnership, Wells Capital has established a Financial Oversight Committee consisting of Leo F. Wells, III, as the Principal Executive Officer; Douglas P. Williams, as the Principal Financial Officer; and Randall D. Fretz, as the Chief of Staff, of Wells Capital. The Financial Oversight Committee serves the equivalent function of an audit committee for, among others, the following purposes: appointment, compensation, review and oversight of the work of our independent public accountants, and establishing and enforcing the code of ethics. However, since the Partnership and General Partners do not have an audit committee and the Financial Oversight Committee is not independent of the Partnership or the General Partners, the Partnership does not have an “audit committee financial expert.”

Code of Ethics

The Financial Oversight Committee has adopted a code of ethics applicable to Wells Capital’s Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer, as well as the principal accounting officer, controller, or other employees of Wells Capital performing similar functions on behalf of the Partnership, if any. You may obtain a copy of this code of ethics, without charge, upon request by calling our Investor Services Department at (800) 557-4830 or (770) 243-8282.

Page 22

Table of Contents

The following table summarizes the compensation and fees paid to the General Partners and their affiliates during the year ended December 31, 2003.

No limited partner is known by the Partnership to own beneficially more than 5% of the outstanding units of the Partnership.

Set forth below is the security ownership of management as of February 15, 2004.

No arrangements exist which would, upon execution thereof, result in a change in control of the Partnership.

The compensation and fees paid or to be paid by the Partnership to the General Partners and their affiliates in connection with the operation of the Partnership are as follows:

Interest in Partnership Cash Flow and Net Sale Proceeds

The General Partners will receive a subordinated participation in net cash flow from operations equal to 10% of net cash flow after the limited partners holding Class A Units have received preferential distributions equal to 10% of their adjusted capital contribution. The General Partners will also receive a subordinated participation in net sale proceeds and net financing proceeds equal to 20% of residual proceeds available for distribution after the limited partners holding Class A Units have received a return of their adjusted capital contribution plus a 10% cumulative return on their adjusted capital contributions and limited partners holding Class B Units have received a return of their adjusted capital contribution plus a 15% cumulative return on their adjusted capital contribution; provided, however, that in no event shall the General Partners receive in the aggregate in excess of 15% of net sale proceeds and net financing proceeds remaining after payments to limited partners from such proceeds of amounts equal to the sum of their adjusted capital contributions plus a 6% cumulative return on their adjusted capital contributions. The General Partners have not received any distributions of operating cash flow or net sales proceeds in 2003.

Page 23

Table of Contents

Property Management and Leasing Fees

Wells Management, an affiliate of the General Partners, receives compensation for supervising the management and leasing of the Partnership’s properties owned through Joint Ventures equal to the lesser of: (a)(i) 3% of gross revenues for management and 3% of the gross revenues for leasing (aggregate maximum of 6%) plus a separate one-time fee for initial rent-up or leasing-up of newly constructed properties in an amount not to exceed the fee customarily charged in arm’s-length transactions by others rendering similar services in the same geographic area for similar properties; and (ii) in the case of industrial and commercial properties which are leased on a long-term basis (ten or more years), 1% of the gross revenues except for initial leasing fees equal to 3% of the gross revenues over the first five years of the lease term; or (b) the amounts charged by unaffiliated persons rendering comparable services in the same geographic area. Wells Management received $116,304 in property management and leasing fee compensation for services rendered during the year ended December 31, 2003.

Real Estate Commissions

In connection with the sale of Partnership properties, the General Partners or their affiliates may receive commissions not exceeding the lesser of (a) 50% of the commissions customarily charged by other brokers in arm’s-length transactions involving comparable properties in the same geographic area or (b) 3% of the gross sales price of the property, and provided that payments of such commissions will be made only after limited partners have received prior distributions totaling 100% of their capital contributions plus a 6% cumulative return on their adjusted capital contributions. The General Partners or their affiliates have not received any real estate commissions in 2003.

Expense Reimbursements

See Note 6 to the Partnership’s financial statements included with this report for a description of the administrative costs and reimbursements made to the General Partners and their affiliates during the year ended December 31, 2003.

Preapproval Policies and Procedures

The Financial Oversight Committee preapproves all auditing and permissible non-auditing services provided by our independent public accountants. The approval may be given as part of the Financial Oversight Committee’s approval of the scope of the engagement of our independent public accountants or on an individual basis. The preapproval of certain audit-related services and certain non-auditing services not exceeding enumerated dollar limits may be delegated to one or more of the Financial Oversight Committee’s members, but the member to whom such authority is delegated shall report any preapproval decisions to the full Financial Oversight Committee. Our independent public accountants may not be retained to perform the non-auditing services specified in Section 10A(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Fees Paid to the Independent Public Accountants

As indicated in Item 9 above, we engaged Ernst & Young to be our independent public accountants on July 3, 2002. The aggregate fees billed to the Partnership for professional accounting services, including the audit of the Partnership’s annual financial statements by Ernst & Young for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002, are set forth in the table below.

Page 24

Table of Contents

For purposes of the preceding table, the professional fees are classified as follows:

Since May 6, 2003, the effective date of the SEC Rules requiring audit committees to approve all services provided by independent public accountants, 100% of the services performed by Ernst & Young described above under the captions “Audit Fees,” “Audit-Related Fees,” “Tax Fees,” and “All Other Fees” were approved in advance by a member of the Financial Oversight Committee.

Page 25

Table of Contents

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.

Page 26

Table of Contents

EXHIBIT INDEX

TO

2003 FORM 10-K

OF

WELLS REAL ESTATE FUND VI, L.P.

The following documents are filed as exhibits to this report. Those exhibits previously filed and incorporated herein by reference are identified below by an asterisk. For each such asterisked exhibit, there is shown below the description of the previous filing. Exhibits which are not required for this report are omitted.

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page F-1

Table of Contents

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Partners

Wells Real Estate Fund VI, L.P.

We have audited the accompanying balance sheets of Wells Real Estate Fund VI, L.P. (a Georgia public limited partnership) as of December 31, 2003 and 2002, and the related statements of income, partners’ capital, and cash flows for the years then ended. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Partnership’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits. The financial statements of Wells Real Estate Fund VI, L.P. for the year ended December 31, 2001 were audited by other auditors who have ceased operations and whose report dated January 25, 2002 expressed an unqualified opinion on those financial statements before the restatement adjustments and disclosures described in Note 1.

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

In our opinion, the 2003 and 2002 financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Wells Real Estate Fund VI, L.P. at December 31, 2003 and 2002 and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the years then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States.

As discussed above, the financial statements of Wells Real Estate Fund VI, L.P. for the year ended December 31, 2001 were audited by other auditors who have ceased operations. As described in Note 1, these financial statements have been restated. We audited the adjustments described in Note 1 that were applied to restate the 2001 financial statements. Our procedures included (a) agreeing the restatement adjustment amounts to the corresponding accounts maintained in the underlying records of the Partnership, and (b) testing the application of the adjustments to the previously reported amounts. In our opinion, such adjustments are appropriate and have been properly applied. Additionally, as described in Note 1, these financial statements have been revised to include disclosure of the number of Class A weighted average limited partner units outstanding for the year ended December 31, 2001 on the statement of income. Our procedures with respect to this disclosure included recalculating the number of Class A weighted average limited partner units outstanding for the year ended December 31, 2001 by dividing the net income amount allocated to Class A limited partners previously reported on the statement of income in 2001, by the amount of net income per weighted average Class A limited partner unit previously reported on the statement of income in 2001. In our opinion, the disclosure of the number of Class A weighted average limited partner units outstanding on the statement of income for the year ended December 31, 2001 is appropriate. However, we were not engaged to audit, review, or apply any procedures to the 2001 financial statements of Wells Real Estate Fund VI, L.P. other than with respect to such restatement adjustments and disclosures and, accordingly, we do not express an opinion or any other form of assurance on the 2001 financial statements taken as a whole.

/s/    Ernst & Young LLP

Atlanta, Georgia

February 18, 2004

Page F-2

Table of Contents

(The following is a copy of the audit report previously issued by Arthur Andersen LLP in connection with the financial statements of Wells Real Estate Fund VI, L.P. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2001 included in the 2001 Form 10-K filing. This audit report has not been reissued by Arthur Andersen in connection with the filing of this form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003.)

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

To Wells Real Estate Fund VI, L.P.:

We have audited the accompanying balance sheets of WELLS REAL ESTATE FUND VI, L.P. (a Georgia public limited partnership) as of December 31, 2001 and 2000 and the related statements of income, partners’ capital, and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2001. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Partnership’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.

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

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Wells Real Estate Fund VI, L.P. as of December 31, 2001 and 2000 and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2001 in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States.

ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Atlanta, Georgia

January 25, 2002

Page F-3

Table of Contents

WELLS REAL ESTATE FUND VI, L.P.

                                                                       (A Georgia Public Limited Partnership)                                                                       

BALANCE SHEETS

DECEMBER 31, 2003 AND 2002

See accompanying notes.

Page F-4

Table of Contents

WELLS REAL ESTATE FUND VI, L.P.

                                                                       (A Georgia Public Limited Partnership)                                                                       

STATEMENTS OF INCOME

FOR THE YEARS ENDED

DECEMBER 31, 2003, 2002, AND 2001

See accompanying notes.

Page F-5

Table of Contents

WELLS REAL ESTATE FUND VI, L.P.

                                                                       (A Georgia Public Limited Partnership)                                                                       

STATEMENTS OF PARTNERS’ CAPITAL

FOR THE YEARS ENDED

DECEMBER 31, 2003, 2002, AND 2001

See accompanying notes.

Page F-6

Table of Contents

WELLS REAL ESTATE FUND VI, L.P.

                                                                       (A Georgia Public Limited Partnership)                                                                       

STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

FOR THE YEARS ENDED

DECEMBER 31, 2003, 2002, AND 2001