age. 7 . “The regulations under section 411 [of the internal revenue code] are also applicable to provision of ERISA Title I." Central Laborers’ Pension Fund v. Heinz, 541 U.S. 739, 747, 124 S.Ct. 2230, 159 L.Ed.2d 46 (2004). 8 . The Court need not ultimately decide whether the supplement is a social security supplement because, for reasons previously discussed and for reasons considered below, the supplement is clearly some type of ancillary benefit. 9 . Although the Plan is a pension plan and not a welfare plan, courts routinely find welfare provisions inside pension plans. See, e.g., In re Lucent Death Benefits ERISA Litig., 541 F.3d 250, 255 (3d Cir.2008) (finding death benefit in pension plan to be welfare benefit); McBarron v. S & T Indus., Inc., 771 F.2d 94, 98 (6th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). 10 . Defendant also argues that the Amendment
holding that reliance on comprehensive plan as basis for denying conditionaluse permit was improper where zoning ordinance did not list compliance with comprehensive plan as basis for denial holding that disability plan established by state university for benefit of employees qualified for governmental plan exclusion holding that plan language giving plan administrator power to determine which employees are eligible to participate in the plan and providing all parties dealing with the plan an interpretation of plan provisions on request indicates deferential standard of review of trustee eligibility decisions holding that disability provision in comprehensive retirement plan constituted a welfare plan holding that a plan provision stating that the summary plan description and summaries of material modifications  are hereby incorporated by reference and constitute a part of the plan acted to incorporate into the plan a limitations provision found only in the summary plan description